Jump to content

Dissatisfaction


Recommended Posts

I don’t usually use forums to vent or air grievances, but I’m making an exception because of my very negative experience with MTFellwalker and Groundspeak. Both have ignored repeated e-mails requesting what actions I needed to take in order to have a number of caches approved that MTFellwalker as had on hold since March 25. All but one of the caches in question are in the Gooding Little City of Rocks with the blessing of the BLM officer in charge of this Wilderness Study Area. I have not been given an explanation why the lone cache outside the Gooding Little City of Rocks was placed on hold, even after repeated requests for the reason why.

 

I submitted several ‘tickets’ to Groundspeak, along with copies of e-mails to and from MTFellwalker, and still have heard nothing more than the standard ‘someone will get back to you’ e-mail. Supposedly, this situation was escalated to the Customer Service Manager according to an e-mail I received on June 10. As of this date, June 25, I have heard nothing further. I have not had a word from MTFellwalker since May 20 when he assured me he would discuss the caches in question with other ‘reviewers’ in my area and make a decision on how to proceed.

 

My very first e-mail to MTFellwalker stated I was agreeable to do whatever it took to get at least some of the caches approved and offered photographic evidence of the type of area where the caches are hidden, if that would help in making a decision. I also supplied MTFellwalker and Groundspeak with the name, position and phone number of my contact with the Bureau of Land Management. He has yet to be contacted by either.

 

Since Groundspeak has shown no desire to provide a remedy for one of their paying members they have left me no choice but to withdraw my membership as of July 20, 2008. As time permits I will be making visits to each of my caches and recovering the containers, so if you have had any plans for going after any of my existing caches, sooner will be better than later.

 

It has been a fun ride and I have had the pleasure of meeting some very interesting and very nice people in this sport. But, I refuse to be treated as a non-entity by the ‘powers that be’ when I have given as much as I’ve gotten from this sport. There will be a few key caches left active, at least until the end of summer, since my cousin has agreed to service them if they need maintenance. They are:

 

Benchmark It GCTYTD

Sumit 38 GCTBWK

AETOYS GC11GMD

ETD: On Top of the World GC12NB0

Grey Wolf’s Treasure Chest GC130DF

Al’s Cache GC15M98

Benchmark It 28, McKinney Butte Summit GC15NB9

Greywolf’s Bliss TB Hotel & Spa GC15WFJ

Grey Wolf’s 200th GC16QX3

ETD: In Memory of Rawhide GC1BFW7

Tribute to Quietbreezes GC1C9HK

In Memory of Corky GC1CRNJ

 

Keep cachin’,

 

Greywolf1242

 

"Remember that you own the post you made, and you have some time to go back and edit it. Take out the finger pointing and "mad stuff". If your objective is to get the caches published, that would probably go a long way toward that goal. If your objective was to publicly throw mud, you were successful."

 

I've had two months to think about the situation. And my objective is not to have the caches in question published; they have already been withdrawn and I have cancelled my paid membership. My objective was to inform, without showing too much anger and having the post bounced (I think that's what it's called when a post is too objectionable to the moderators), others of the lack of professionalism in both MTFellwalker and Groundspeak in handling what should have been a simple resolution to a simple problem. I might also add that my cousin placed two caches in the same area where my caches were placed on hold and his caches were approved. More than likely because greywolf1242 wasn't associated with his caches.

I do regret that I can see no reason for me to spend my time and money maintaining my remaining caches when I will no longer be active with Groundspeak. I live on a very modest SS check and caching outside my immediate area is out of the question. My participation in geocaching over this past year has been in hiding caches for others to find. With that opportunity taken away, there is no reason for me to continue in the sport. If that sounds like, "I'm taking my marbles and going home if you won't play my way", then let some others offer to adopt any of my caches they would like to adopt. I have no problem with leaving my active caches for others to find, I just won't be the one to maintain them.

 

greywolf1242

 

ZSandman wrote: "I figured a cache in Idaho called "Little City of Rocks" might be a good center point to start looking, since we don't know the coords to the proposed cache.

 

There are 200 geocaches within 14 miles of that one cache.

 

170 of those 200 were hidden by the OP.

 

That's 170 within only 14 miles.

 

I'm not sure what that tells you, but somebody might think that's pretty saturated."

 

It might interest you to know the following information on the number of caches within 14 miles of these zip codes:

 

83301 - 305

83702 - 896

83201 - 311

 

Makes 200 within 14 miles sound like not all that many afterall. Check them for yourself.

Edited by greywolf1242
Link to comment
I also supplied MTFellwalker and Groundspeak with the name, position and phone number of my contact with the Bureau of Land Management. He has yet to be contacted by either.

 

Waiting for a reply can be frustrating, but expecting Groundspeak to make phone calls to get verification of permission might be expecting a bit much. If the cache means that much to you, and it appears it does, I'd suggest getting written permission on a BLM letterhead, scanning it, and sending it to the reviewer. If there is a question about permissions, that should resolve it.

 

Since Groundspeak has shown no desire to provide a remedy for one of their paying members they have left me no choice but to withdraw my membership as of July 20, 2008 ....... It has been a fun ride and I have had the pleasure of meeting some very interesting and very nice people in this sport.

 

That's a shame. Of course, you can still cache without a paying membership. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. :D

 

 

Keep cachin’,

Greywolf1242

 

 

That's good advice to give. Also good advice to take. :D

 

Shifting gears just a bit:

 

My guess is there's more to this story that what's just in this post. You sound like you're mad, and you've adopted the approach "By golly, I'll show them!", and now you've drawn a line in the sand. There are probably issues on the GS side that are valid causes for a delay, and patience in such situations can be the key to a good resolution.

 

I've written posts before that drew lines in the sand. Later I wished I'd sat on my post for a few days, and then worked through whatever the snag happened to be.

 

Don't let small things be bigger than they are. It's just geocaching. Not worth getting all worked up over. That tends to take the fun out of it.

 

Go somewhere this weekend, find some caches in a new area, go to an event (if possible), and cool off. Remember why this was fun in the first place. Read a book. Buy some new rechargeable batteries. Write a new cache listing that has nothing to do with BLM or possible verboten territories. Get back to basics.

 

Remember that you own the post you made, and you have some time to go back and edit it. Take out the finger pointing and "mad stuff". If your objective is to get the caches published, that would probably go a long way toward that goal. If your objective was to publicly throw mud, you were successful. ;)

 

As one old guy to another, just chill out, edit your post, and don't let this thing be more than what it is.

 

As I heard someone say very recently... "Keep cachin'."

 

Happy trails................

Link to comment
No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

That may well be true, but it certainly can take the wind out of someone's sails. It sort of makes you wonder why you bother.

 

To the OP, maybe look at another site to list your caches, or take up letterboxing. It's treasure hunting from a different angle. ...and there are no reviewers between you and the seekers of your boxes.

Link to comment

Initially I thought that it was possible that you missed a reviewers note, or that you didn't check that the caches where active. But you have over 250 hidden caches so I'm sure you know how the system workes and are fimiliar with the guidelines.

It's seems out the Groundspeak and you local reviewer has been ignoring your request, but for the most part 97.375% of time our local reviewer is right on top of the ball and let's us know what's going one.

With that said, lately, I have noticed there have been some delays with approvals and some other reviewers have been helping hit the publish button.

 

Some good advice is found above ... don't throw out the baby with the bath water ... and it looks like you have lots of babies. ;)

Link to comment

Three words...

 

Power trail, over-saturation.

 

Have a good day.

 

(The ratings are funny, you folks really make me laugh sometimes.)

I don't know about that. I think the term "power blob" may apply here. Some sort of shotgun approach to cache placement.

Link to comment

Three words...

 

Power trail, over-saturation.

 

Have a good day.

 

(The ratings are funny, you folks really make me laugh sometimes.)

I don't know about that. I think the term "power blob" may apply here. Some sort of shotgun approach to cache placement.

Oh...sounds tempting!!!

.

.

.

Side note...I would have to say 4 on the Geocide Scale...needs more angst (and a little sarcasim wouldn't hurt either)!!!

Link to comment

Three words...

 

Power trail, over-saturation.

 

Have a good day.

 

(The ratings are funny, you folks really make me laugh sometimes.)

I don't know about that. I think the term "power blob" may apply here. Some sort of shotgun approach to cache placement.

As always, the flip side of the coin. :)

Link to comment

.... but for the most part 97.375% of time our local reviewer is right on top of the ball and let's us know what's going on.....

 

Move to Mississippi. Our percentage is running at 98.847% right now. That's almost 1.472% better than where you are.

Link to comment

...Power trail, over-saturation....

 

The whole concept of over saturation is still so lose and artificial that no cacher can get their head around it. Reviewers "know it when they see it" but that does owners no good what so ever when they are out in the real world placing caches.

 

Also the OP said they worked with the land owner on all but one of the caches. Wouldn't that trump the artifiical concept of over saturation?

 

It would be better to reverse the process so it's active instead of reactive. Let owners know up front. Put saturated power blobs and trails on the map in big red zones that say "This area is in a state of oversaturation. We won't be listing caches in the red zones. Try a waymark instead".

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Initially I thought that it was possible that you missed a reviewers note, or that you didn't check that the caches where active. But you have over 250 hidden caches so I'm sure you know how the system workes and are fimiliar with the guidelines....

 

250 caches in my territory and I've not found one of them that I can see. Egads I've not been out caching much the past few years...

Link to comment

Three words...

 

Power trail, over-saturation.

 

Have a good day.

 

(The ratings are funny, you folks really make me laugh sometimes.)

I don't know about that. I think the term "power blob" may apply here. Some sort of shotgun approach to cache placement.

There's always two sides to the story, and while we don't know the details (and don't need to know them since it's none of our business), it appears there was some concern about the hides.

 

I'm not sure how you contacted Groundspeak, but I've found that they and the reviewers always respond in a reasonable time.

 

Maybe your email wasn't getting all your emails or something. Mine was messed up for about 2 months and bouncing mail that friends and co-workers were sending me. As far as I knew, I just wasn't getting much mail during that time.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

...Power trail, over-saturation....

 

The who concept of over saturation is still so lose and artificial that no cacher can get their head around it. Reviewers "know it when they see it" but that does owners no good what so ever when they are out in the real world placing caches.

 

Also the OP said they worked with the land owner on all but one of the caches. Wouldn't that trump the artifiical concept of over saturation?

 

It would be better to reverse the process so it's active instead of reactive. Let owners know up front. Put saturated power blobs and trails on the map in big red zones that say "This area is in a state of oversaturation. We won't be listing caches in the red zones. Try a waymark instead".

Now that would be an interesting feature...:)

Link to comment
Reviewers "know it when they see it" but that does owners no good what so ever when they are out in the real world placing caches.

 

I "know an ugly woman when I see one", but that doesn't mean I can write a guideline for what makes her that way.

Link to comment
Reviewers "know it when they see it" but that does owners no good what so ever when they are out in the real world placing caches.

I "know an ugly woman when I see one", but that doesn't mean I can write a guideline for what makes her that way.

:D:):D:D:D

 

I needed that laugh!!! Now to be fair to all...

 

Everyone knows an ugly man when they see one, but that doesn't mean Webchimp can write a guideline for what makes him that way.

Link to comment

...and there are no reviewers between you and the seekers of your boxes.

 

I'd add that after trying to locate severel letterboxes that were placed by out-of-town vacationing boxers all along the Blue Ridge Parkway, I much prefer having the reviewers as a filter. The filter is good, the filter is your friend.

Link to comment

I needed that laugh!!! Now to be fair to all...

 

Fairness is good.

 

I got to thinking, "Hmmmmmmmmm........", I said to myself, "In the interest of fairness, maybe we should look to see how saturated the area is.".

 

That's what i said to myself.

 

I figured a cache in Idaho called "Little City of Rocks" might be a good center point to start looking, since we don't know the coords to the proposed cache.

 

There are 200 geocaches within 14 miles of that one cache.

 

170 of those 200 were hidden by the OP.

 

That's 170 within only 14 miles.

 

I'm not sure what that tells you, but somebody might think that's pretty saturated.

Link to comment

I needed that laugh!!! Now to be fair to all...

 

Fairness is good.

 

I got to thinking, "Hmmmmmmmmm........", I said to myself, "In the interest of fairness, maybe we should look to see how saturated the area is.".

 

That's what i said to myself.

 

I figured a cache in Idaho called "Little City of Rocks" might be a good center point to start looking, since we don't know the coords to the proposed cache.

 

There are 200 geocaches within 14 miles of that one cache.

 

170 of those 200 were hidden by the OP.

 

That's 170 within only 14 miles.

 

I'm not sure what that tells you, but somebody might think that's pretty saturated.

 

That may indeed be the case, but it appears that instead of just stating that, this guy hasn't heard anything.

 

Wouldn't it just as easily be knocked on the head by the reviewer simply stating this - or at least stating something?

Link to comment

I needed that laugh!!! Now to be fair to all...

 

Fairness is good.

 

I got to thinking, "Hmmmmmmmmm........", I said to myself, "In the interest of fairness, maybe we should look to see how saturated the area is.".

 

That's what i said to myself.

 

I figured a cache in Idaho called "Little City of Rocks" might be a good center point to start looking, since we don't know the coords to the proposed cache.

 

There are 200 geocaches within 14 miles of that one cache.

 

170 of those 200 were hidden by the OP.

 

That's 170 within only 14 miles.

 

I'm not sure what that tells you, but somebody might think that's pretty saturated.

 

Gadzooks and egads! Thems a lot of caches,

 

4 for moral indignation.

Link to comment

...I'm not sure what that tells you, but somebody might think that's pretty saturated.

 

California I'm sure has some amazing cache density. He's probably not even scratched the surface of his area.

 

By my quick calcs there is room for 78,400 caches in that space. Ignoring annoying things like private property and such. That's 0.25% saturation. Homiopathic caching if you had to put a spin on it.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I needed that laugh!!! Now to be fair to all...

 

Fairness is good.

 

I got to thinking, "Hmmmmmmmmm........", I said to myself, "In the interest of fairness, maybe we should look to see how saturated the area is.".

 

That's what i said to myself.

 

I figured a cache in Idaho called "Little City of Rocks" might be a good center point to start looking, since we don't know the coords to the proposed cache.

 

There are 200 geocaches within 14 miles of that one cache.

 

170 of those 200 were hidden by the OP.

 

That's 170 within only 14 miles.

 

I'm not sure what that tells you, but somebody might think that's pretty saturated.

 

ZSandman, I'm not sure where you live, but you might want to check these zip codes out for yourself. All numbers are within 14 miles of each zip code.

 

92571 - 971

92505 - 1266

97201 - 1454

 

Makes 200 caches within 14 miles of one cache seem pretty paltry to me; but, that's just my opinion.

 

It might also interest you to know that there are 1827 caches within 14 miles of Groundspeak's home address. Now, that just might be considered oversaturation; ya think?

Edited by greywolf1242
Link to comment

Seems to me here’s a fellow who thoroughly enjoys placing caches. The caches could appeal to a wide spectrum of seekers. He’s merrily going along contributing to the geocaching community, feeling good, and then…. a brick wall. No explanations. No contact. What would your response be?

 

… and then of the first 7 responses, 5 had to make what they thought to be clever comments about geocide – shame on you and the rest of the clever geocide ‘raters’ as well.

 

Does it have something to do with cache saturation? If so, an explanation from the powers that be, at the very least, would have been nice.

 

edited for spelling

Edited by 3jaze
Link to comment

… and then of the first 7 responses, 5 had to make what they thought to be clever comments about genocide – shame on you and the rest of the clever genocide ‘raters’ as well.

 

No-one said anything about genocide...

 

Perhaps what you meant was "geocide" - and that wasn't mentioned until post #30.

Edited by derangedlunatech
Link to comment

In fairness to greywolf, most of you are not familiar with the geography these caches are located in. 14 miles is a long ways in Idahos Gooding county and incorporates vast stretches of lava and desert complete with pictographs, caves, lava tubes, crevasses and the like.

 

Over saturation may be a problem in the urban environment when muggle contact and related issues can cause harm. It shouldn't be an issue in the wild desert where 100 yards can be quite a bushwhack.

 

Regarding his geocide, I'll be sad to see him go but can't give it more than a 2.5. I've known Dennis for years and hope that he changes his mind or at least converts them to Terracaches.

 

The Fellwalker issue isn't surprising. I personally have not found him/her to be particularly responsive.

Link to comment
... I much prefer having the reviewers as a filter. The filter is good, the filter is your friend.

Yeah, and after seeing all of the lame trache that geocachers put out I see that reviewer filter thing is the cat's meow, too.

 

I see, CoyoteRed, that you have tons of experience from which you speak. I bow to your higher authority on just what a quality cache is and the terrible expense you must go to in order to provide quality caches for others to find. My hat is off to you.

Link to comment
Does it have something to do with cache saturation? If so, an explanation from the powers that be, at the very least, would have been nice.

Though I am just a lowly reviewer and not one of TPTB, I did comment about the over-saturation. That would be post number 8. Post numbers are at the upper right of each post.

 

And to greywolf1242, the point WebChimp is making is that *you* own 170 out of 200 caches in a 14 mile radius from a given point. I've seen the caches on hold. Most are roughly 0.1 miles from other caches on hold or from other caches you own. Maybe you should consider driving 20 miles away next time. Even Vinny does that when he throws caches out the window and aims at road signs.

Link to comment
Does it have something to do with cache saturation? If so, an explanation from the powers that be, at the very least, would have been nice.

Though I am just a lowly reviewer and not one of TPTB, I did comment about the over-saturation. That would be post number 8. Post numbers are at the upper right of each post.

 

And to greywolf1242, the point WebChimp is making is that *you* own 170 out of 200 caches in a 14 mile radius from a given point. I've seen the caches on hold. Most are roughly 0.1 miles from other caches on hold or from other caches you own. Maybe you should consider driving 20 miles away next time. Even Vinny does that when he throws caches out the window and aims at road signs.

 

... that was Sue ...

Link to comment
And to greywolf1242, the point WebChimp is making is that *you* own 170 out of 200 caches in a 14 mile radius from a given point. I've seen the caches on hold. Most are roughly 0.1 miles from other caches on hold or from other caches you own.

 

So, there is a limit as to how many caches any particular owner can get published within a set distance, even if they meet the guidelines set by Groundspeak? I'm sure a note from the reviewer saying the owner had reached his personal saturation point for this area would've been better than silence or non-action.

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Does it have something to do with cache saturation? If so, an explanation from the powers that be, at the very least, would have been nice.

Though I am just a lowly reviewer and not one of TPTB, I did comment about the over-saturation. That would be post number 8. Post numbers are at the upper right of each post.

 

And to greywolf1242, the point WebChimp is making is that *you* own 170 out of 200 caches in a 14 mile radius from a given point. I've seen the caches on hold. Most are roughly 0.1 miles from other caches on hold or from other caches you own. Maybe you should consider driving 20 miles away next time. Even Vinny does that when he throws caches out the window and aims at road signs.

 

This does not appear to be the usual newbie cacher (of which I am one) who hasn't read the guidelines, or who has an entitlement issues etc etc etc. This appears to be a very experienced cache hider. I feel that if it was an issue of oversaturation (or what ever the issue is) it would be the polite and kind thing for his reviewer to let him know that this was the possible issue and that it was being discussed with TPTB, and give mr Greywolf a timeline as to when it might possibly be sorted. It doesn't take more than a few minutes to type an email containing such information, and it would be good business practice.

 

It sounds like it will be a sad day for cachers in his area when most of his caches get withdrawn. :):D

 

Annie

Link to comment

… and then of the first 7 responses, 5 had to make what they thought to be clever comments about genocide – shame on you and the rest of the clever genocide ‘raters’ as well.

 

No-one said anything about genocide...

 

Perhaps what you meant was "geocide" - and that wasn't mentioned until post #30.

For the record, the ratings are referring to the quality of the geocide, and those started in the first post after the OP.

 

It's too bad to OP went the geocide route. A lot of people seem to think he had an argument, and I do too. But when you try to garner attention with a geocide, the geocide will take all the attention.

Link to comment
Does it have something to do with cache saturation? If so, an explanation from the powers that be, at the very least, would have been nice.

Though I am just a lowly reviewer and not one of TPTB, I did comment about the over-saturation. That would be post number 8. Post numbers are at the upper right of each post.

 

And to greywolf1242, the point WebChimp is making is that *you* own 170 out of 200 caches in a 14 mile radius from a given point. I've seen the caches on hold. Most are roughly 0.1 miles from other caches on hold or from other caches you own. Maybe you should consider driving 20 miles away next time. Even Vinny does that when he throws caches out the window and aims at road signs.

 

This does not appear to be the usual newbie cacher (of which I am one) who hasn't read the guidelines, or who has an entitlement issues etc etc etc. This appears to be a very experienced cache hider. I feel that if it was an issue of oversaturation (or what ever the issue is) it would be the polite and kind thing for his reviewer to let him know that this was the possible issue and that it was being discussed with TPTB, and give mr Greywolf a timeline as to when it might possibly be sorted. It doesn't take more than a few minutes to type an email containing such information, and it would be good business practice.

 

It sounds like it will be a sad day for cachers in his area when most of his caches get withdrawn. :(:(

 

Annie

 

Usually, not always, there is more to the story, but I join you and BadAndy in hoping he doesn't quit....

 

I give it a 3.14159, because I like pie.

 

I like pi too. :D But I don't care to pile on with my own cute rating... :D

 

Does it have something to do with cache saturation? If so, an explanation from the powers that be, at the very least, would have been nice.

Though I am just a lowly reviewer and not one of TPTB, I did comment about the over-saturation. That would be post number 8. Post numbers are at the upper right of each post.

 

And to greywolf1242, the point WebChimp is making is that *you* own 170 out of 200 caches in a 14 mile radius from a given point. I've seen the caches on hold. Most are roughly 0.1 miles from other caches on hold or from other caches you own. Maybe you should consider driving 20 miles away next time. Even Vinny does that when he throws caches out the window and aims at road signs.

 

The .01 rule is arbitrary, but I understand why it is necessary. I don't remember reading a guideline about cachers being limited to a certain number of caches in a given territory or this even being a problem. Sheesh, if he can maintain 'em... Who cares? :D

 

I still don't understand the angst over power trails either.... :D Is there a guideline forbidding them now. It has been awhile since I read them.....

 

Maybe the 170 caches would spell a dirty word in google earth or sumthin' if they were approved.... :ph34r::lol:

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

… and then of the first 7 responses, 5 had to make what they thought to be clever comments about genocide – shame on you and the rest of the clever genocide ‘raters’ as well.

 

No-one said anything about genocide...

 

Perhaps what you meant was "geocide" - and that wasn't mentioned until post #30.

For the record, the ratings are referring to the quality of the geocide, and those started in the first post after the OP.

 

It's too bad to OP went the geocide route. A lot of people seem to think he had an argument, and I do too. But when you try to garner attention with a geocide, the geocide will take all the attention.

 

Agreed. You said it better than me.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...