Jump to content

Dissatisfaction

greywolf1242
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

wapahani

+wapahani

Posted
Posted

Once again we are missing the real point of the original post.

 

He wanted to know why it is taking so long to get an answer. Not why his cache hasn't been approved.

He simply wants to know why his local reviewer hasn't taken the time to let him know the current situation. When I read the original post, I don't see him really questioning the facts of the placement, but why its taking so long to get his caches either approved or denied.

 

Sometimes I wonder why some on here continually read too much into a post.

 

oversaturation is such a sweet term.

 

Especially in todays market and gas prices.

 

Its nice to go to a park or reserve land and find 2 or 3 caches.

Did this last evening. Caches took a good 5 minutes walk between them and took the entire family out. Actually out of the 3 caches in the reserve, we only found 1.... just because there might be a bunch of caches doesn't mean you will find them all the first time!

 

Had an example when we finished off the evening, went into town to grab a few left of caches and had an example when we paced it off of 2 caches withing 150' of each other. Had to chuckle! Within a 4 city block area there are 4 caches, so take your pick.

 

To those in charge and Greywolf, you both should take this aside and go from there now that its been brought back to the front burner. What I have found is that once you bring attention to something, if you can stay calm and move forward, things will get done.

 

Now, if it is true the length of time and lack of communications, that is a bit ridiculous. Email is a quick and effective tool, sometimes too effective and you can't get a real point across with typed words.

Perhaps a telephone number, leaves even less to the imagination doesn't it.

 

Oh well, its a hobby, yes?

Link to comment
WebChimp

+WebChimp

Posted
Posted

I reckon that "problem" (if you consider it a problem) is pretty much about to be cured.

 

I reckon. He ought to sit on that idea for a few more days, reconsider, thank everyone for the enlightening and entertaining discussions, and move the new cache to some new locale.

 

Most folks have short memories, and this whole thread will be forgotten once a new hot thread develops.

 

If he made a cheerful public recanting, I doubt anyone would remember this happened at all in a few months. Cachers can be very understanding folks. Given the opportunity, they would probably publicly rejoice that the crisis was averted.

 

It would also help him avoid having to drive around and pick up dead containers from 250 locations, even if they are in close proximity to one another.

Link to comment
WebChimp

+WebChimp

Posted
Posted
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

 

Which the OP says he received on May 20. The wheels of innovative reviewing can grind slow.

Link to comment
greywolf1242

greywolf1242

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I reckon that "problem" (if you consider it a problem) is pretty much about to be cured.

 

I reckon. He ought to sit on that idea for a few more days, reconsider, thank everyone for the enlightening and entertaining discussions, and move the new cache to some new locale.

 

Most folks have short memories, and this whole thread will be forgotten once a new hot thread develops.

 

If he made a cheerful public recanting, I doubt anyone would remember this happened at all in a few months. Cachers can be very understanding folks. Given the opportunity, they would probably publicly rejoice that the crisis was averted.

 

It would also help him avoid having to drive around and pick up dead containers from 250 locations, even if they are in close proximity to one another.

 

A cheerful public recanting? What am I supposed to recant?

Link to comment
WebChimp

+WebChimp

Posted
Posted
. Since this was a 5/5 cache with a number of related safety factors and even questions of legality (all of which I had researched and for which I provided the answers)

 

And therein may lie part of the difference.

 

You did all the research, and provided that information to the reviewer.

 

The OP did the research, and then gave phone numbers to the reviewer expecting the reviewer to call the BLM.

Link to comment
sequens vitae mortem

+sequens vitae mortem

Posted
Posted

 

oversaturation is such a sweet term.

 

Especially in todays market and gas prices.

 

I have been following this thread for a while, and I have had really no opinion either way. At least, not until this came up. It may be a little off-topic, but I have to say that over saturation is not a sweet term if it's doing damage to the environment. (This has already been discussed in previous posts in this particular thread, so I do not want to be berated with comments about how he's talked to the land management officials in the area.) I know gas prices are high, believe me, I'm hurting from them, too. However, we also have to worry about our footprint on certain ecological areas. We can't go through and place lots of close-by caches in one area and expect it not to impact it. I know different types of environmental areas are impacted differently as well. The impact of foot traffic of a cache placed in woodlands with lots of replenishing rainfall is different from one placed in a tundra or desert setting. If lots of people stomp around in the area of an animal that returns there to breed every spring, chances are, they won't breed or even return there. Maybe they won't relocate themselves. Maybe their populations will be hurt because of this. We also may be scaring off certain species of animals that hold a certain niche in a particular area, and that would offset the balance of the entire area. I know not everyone is aware of what animals do inhabit or return to a specific area when they consider placing a cache. Again, I know in this case, the OP did talk to local land and wilderness officials who suggested where he place the caches to provide minimal. I also know that this doesn't apply to all areas: i.e. true urban cache placement.

 

A little saturation is okay in some areas, but it isn't okay in all of them.

Link to comment
WebChimp

+WebChimp

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

He wanted to know why it is taking so long to get an answer. .....

He simply wants to know why his local reviewer hasn't taken the time to let him know the current situation. When I read the original post, I don't see him really questioning the facts of the placement, but why its taking so long to get his caches either approved or denied.

 

 

Ah, but he was told that............. repeatedly. By the reviewer. And, reading the reviewer's notes, this discussion has been going on for quite some time. The reviewer's cautions to the OP about saturation have been delivered before.

 

The reviewer took a lot of time to write a long, polite, helpful answer.

 

Referring to post #98, here's what the reviewer told the OP (bold added by me):

 

I'm rather at a loss as to how to proceed here. You and I have had

e-mail discussions in the past regarding the saturation guidelines and

the problems that come from 'bombing' an area with numerous caches all

within a short time. I thought you understood the portion of the

guidelines that ask you to not go 'cache crazy' when you hide your

containers, even if you personally don't agree with that part of the

section on saturation.

 

But with the start of Spring you began placing numerous caches all

within a very short distance from one another. Ice and Wind listed the

first bunch, but then the next weekend came and there were even more.

At that point they started discussing the situation with me, and we

also asked for the advice of the rest of the reviewing team.

 

Meanwhile even more caches showed up. I kept hoping you'd slow down

and we could then discuss all of the new submissions and come to some

understanding, but you never did so. We ended up with two dozen new

caches, all within a 1 mile radius, placed within a few weeks of one

another. And that doesn't take into account the existing caches in the

area, yours and those of other folks.

 

I'm at a loss to see this as anything but you going 'cache crazy'.

With all of southern Idaho to hide containers in, how is it that this

particular tiny speck of the state has so many special locations that

each needs its very own geocache? How could I list all of these

submissions, then tell anyone else that the park they are trying to

squeeze another container into is full? Please explain to me how each

of these spots can stand alone when from the point of view of an

outside observer many of them seem to be nothing more than an excuse

to stick something under a rock?

 

I'd like to find a way to work with you on your submissions, but we'll

need to be able to communicate effectively in order to do so. I hope

we can.

 

MT Fellwalker

 

Wow.

 

That's about as detailed an explanation as anyone could hope for.

 

The reviewer apparently has quite a sticky wicket to sort out with the OP, who is adamantly not cooperating with the reviewer's requests.

 

The reviewer continues to work with the OP, sending him this (again) polite full disclosure of the reason for the delay:

 

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I want you to understand that

I am part of a team that are doing what we feel is the best for the

sport while upholding the guidelines we have been asked to enforce.

 

I understand from your note that you feel all of these hides are

special, but that some like 'Tribute to Quietbreezes' are especially

so. What I'm going to do is go ahead and list that one while I discuss

the others with the reviewers who oversee this area of the country. It

clearly is hidden with an agenda, but under the circumstances I feel

you have done an adequate job of balancing that agenda with the goals

of geocaching being a light and fun activity.

 

As for the others, I'll let you know what the consensus is from the

reviewers so we can proceed.

 

Thank you.

 

MT Fellwalker

 

And THIS is what the OP is complaining about? The reviewer is working with him in a polite and helpful manner. He listed one of the caches. He's discussing the growing blob of caches in the one area with the other reviewers, and complimenting the OP on his attempts to balance an agenda with the guidelines.

 

THIS is what the OP complained about?

 

Golly gee.

 

This is far from lack of communication, and far from "they won't tell me why", etc. The reviewer told him why, and told him he would try to help.

 

I'll side with the reviewers here. They are trying, and the delay on the approvals involves much more than the OP let on in the original post.

 

Sounds like MT Fellwalker has done a good job, and the OP is just pitching a public fit because the reviewer is actually trying to help him understand and follow the guidelines.

 

Apparently this entire thread has been much ado about nothing.

Edited by WebChimp
Link to comment
Mushtang

Mushtang

Posted
Posted (edited)
Apparently this entire thread has been much ado about nothing.

Which is what those of us that are used to this were expecting. The other side of the story clears up a lot of angst most of the time.

 

It also makes statements like this, which was in the OP, so ridiculous:

Groundspeak has "left me no choice but to withdraw my membership..."

 

Clearly he had other choices.

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment
greywolf1242

greywolf1242

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

He wanted to know why it is taking so long to get an answer. .....

He simply wants to know why his local reviewer hasn't taken the time to let him know the current situation. When I read the original post, I don't see him really questioning the facts of the placement, but why its taking so long to get his caches either approved or denied.

 

 

 

Apparently this entire thread has been much ado about nothing.

 

I noticed you conviently left out my response to MTFellwalker, i.e. "Whatever your decision, Im obvioulsy at the mercy of the powers that be and will pull the caches you belive to be too close to others, or whatever needs to be done to get the rest of my caches released; especially Tribute to Quietbreezes (GC1C9HK), who is a dear friend and fellow geocacher.

 

You also failed to give a reasonable explanation why MTFellwalker might be holding a cache that wasn't even in the vicinity of the 'saturated' area. However, I didn't receive an explanation from MTFellwalker on that one either, so I can excuse you skipping over that issue too.

 

And I certainly believe that 36 days is more than ample time for someone to respond to an e-mail; especially one that gives an easy out/resolution to the 'problem'; namely, that I was willing to pull whatever caches needed to be pulled in order to get some of the others approved. Let the same situation happen to you and then tell me it is 'much ado about nothing'. Of course, you would need to have more than 16 caches hidden to run into that kind of problem, unless you put them all in your local park.

Link to comment
WebChimp

+WebChimp

Posted
Posted

And I certainly believe that 36 days is more than ample time for someone to respond to an e-mail;...

 

It's not 36 days to reply to an email. It's 36 days to discuss an ongoing situation with a passel of other reviewers, the same reviewers who brought this to your reviewers attention, according to the emails you provided. That's not that long when you're dealing with a number of people who are addressing many issues, not just yours.

 

That's not an inordinate amount of time.

 

.......Let the same situation happen to you and then tell me it is 'much ado about nothing'. Of course, you would need to have more than 16 caches hidden to run into that kind of problem, unless you put them all in your local park.

 

It's already happened to me, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

 

Many weeks passed, and finally I got a resolution. I don't think it would have expedited matters if I'd publicly dogged out my reviewer, claimed to not be told the reason, and then later published the very detailed reasons I'd been given before I'd made my OP.

 

This is still all much ado about nothing. And, the horse is still dead.

 

This is all moot since this was all covered in #1.

Link to comment
ReadyOrNot

+ReadyOrNot

Posted
Posted

I thought this was a geocide? Why do you keep posting?

 

Seriously man, you've got some kind of agenda. The agenda was briefly alluded to in the emails that you provides us, but the agenda was never really specified. It seems like you have a couple choices:

 

1) Quit like you said you were going to

2) Venture a little further out, instead of placing all your caches at your doorstep

 

It certainly doesn't look like you are going to be winning this battle.

Link to comment
Dinoprophet

Dinoprophet

Posted
Posted (edited)

Do multis count when considering saturation? I know the main issue was response time, but I wonder if combining some of the hides into one would have been a solution.

Seriously man, you've got some kind of agenda. The agenda was briefly alluded to in the emails that you provides us, but the agenda was never really specified.

I thought it was clear that the agenda referred to was that one of the caches was a tribute to an ill cacher. The approvers were okay with it.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment
greywolf1242

greywolf1242

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I thought this was a geocide? Why do you keep posting?

 

Seriously man, you've got some kind of agenda. The agenda was briefly alluded to in the emails that you provides us, but the agenda was never really specified. It seems like you have a couple choices:

 

1) Quit like you said you were going to

2) Venture a little further out, instead of placing all your caches at your doorstep

 

It certainly doesn't look like you are going to be winning this battle.

 

In the first place, I'm paid up until July 20, so I guess I have as much right to post as you do. You also have the option of not reading this thread. If you took the time to check all of my cache placements, you would see they are not at my doorstep...ooops, with the exception of one that is on my property. If you don't think the 'agenda' was ever specified, then you only read what you wanted to read. I made it perfectly clear in my e-mail of 5-19-08 to MTFellwalker that I was willing to pull whatever caches he deemed necessary to pull in order to get the rest of the caches posted, and I have yet to get a response from him or Groundspeak...that is the agenda! How much time does it take to reply to an e-mail or a ticket? Especially when I've expressed a willingness to pull whatever cahes needed to be pulled to get the remaining ones posted. Someone definitely has an agenda besides me when they can't make the common courtesy of replying to an e-mail.

And, for your information, one way to end this thread is for no one to make any further responses. Because, I will respond when I feel like it until July 20, if it goes on that long, or until I'm bounced. I have just as much right to reply as you do to post.

Link to comment
D@nim@l

+D@nim@l

Posted
Posted

In the first place, I'm paid up until July 20, so I guess I have as much right to post as you do. <snip>

Because, I will respond when I feel like it until July 20, if it goes on that long, or until I'm bounced. I have just as much right to reply as you do to post.

 

You don't have to pay or be a premium member to post, so please don't let that July 20th deadline stop you.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Whew! Long thread.

 

This situation is not as black & white as some would have it sound, from what I've read. I think that the OP did a pretty darned good job of getting permission and of stating his case, and I do think that there was too much time between emails, which led to it taking way too long for the situation to get resolved.

 

On the other hand, either the OP or the reviewers could have suggested dropping some of the caches, which would have allowed some of them to be placed instead of none of them (well, the one tribute cache, not withstanding).

 

I think that the "Power trail" guideline is rather arbritrary and seems to still be in the process of being defined by the reviewers and by Groundspeak (witness the number of us in this very thread that were surprised to learn that it apparently can have something to do with who places the caches as well as with how many).

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...