Non-compliant Caches

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

There's a muck of explanation in another thread where moderators patiently try to explain how non-compliant may exist in the Geocaching.com system to a counter-argument of, "But that's not FAIR!"

 

Since we all know everything in life is perfectly fair, non-compliant caches seemed like an issue that deserved its own thread (again).

 

As I understood the previous explanations, non-compliant caches may happen as a result of:

1. An already published cache is grandfathered in after a new rule would make it non-compliant;

2. A published cache is changed into a non-compliant way without a reviewer being aware that this change was made;

3. A new cache is published in err by a reviewer who is either ignorant or willfully negligent (probably most likely ignorant) of the cache's non-compliance.

 

In any of these three cases, it seems the best course of action is to throw your laptop to the floor, pull your hair and scream incessantly for fifteen minutes while running in circles.

 

After you're done with that, recover your laptop and write a message to your local reviewer, asking what is up with this particular non-compliant cache. The reviewer will be able to answer you on which of the three circumstances this non-compliant cache fits and, if it's 2 or 3, has the ability to address the problem and make the horrible thing go away so you can finally sleep at night.

 

If I'm incorrect in my identification of non-compliant caches being a problem, the reasons that they may occur, or the proper ways for cachers to address problems with non-compliant caches, please correct me. We all want life to be fair.

[+Wintonian]

Being new to the game what I can gather is (having read many posts in the fourm) reviews are volenters who wish to give something back to the hobby and as such recive a lot work, I for one wouldn't expect a reviewer here in the UK to spend half their life running up and down the country physicaly checking out caches and thir locations to ensure complience, therefore geocaching relies on everyone to play their part in ensuring that we can all progress in a way that hopefuly we all aree on most of the time, of course you can't please all the pepole all the time and only some of the pepole some of the time, so maybe their are times when we have to accept that we don't aggree and accept that fact.

 

Guidelines are I would think, there to keep things running smothly in the best way whilst keeping as many pepole as happy as possible.

 

If pepole don't agree with some part of the guidelines then hopefully Groundspeak would look at them and consult with the community on changing them if pepole decide they do need changing.

 

and lets hope this thred can be a little more productive than the other one.

[+johnling]

There are good caches and bad ones. There are some that have been around since the beginning and new ones. Some are in good locations some bad locations. Some require special equipment to obtain. What may be fun to you may not be to others. There are 697,469 active caches as of this posting. There are plenty to choose from. Ignore the ones you have a problem with, for whatever reason, and go have fun. If it bothers you so much it sounds like it is time to get out of the hobby.

[+The Blorenges]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, may I refer you to part of a post from MissJenn, to the UK Forum, about a month ago? I feel it's very relevant to this Topic.

 

About Groundspeak's relationship with the volunteers

 

Occasionally, there will be a contested decision made by a volunteer moderator or reviewer, and someone will pull out an example from another forum or caching area where the same guideline has apparently (and, in some cases, very clearly) not been followed. I believe that this actually helps my point: we give the volunteers a lot of freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes. Where those mistakes cause genuine problems, we try to clear them up afterward. But in many cases, our guidelines are more about trying to do the right thing most of the time, than aiming at some kind of perfection.

 

We accept that in a given year, a certain number of caches will be published too close to a railroad line, or with the name of a business in the title, or in a disrespectful position in a cemetery, or whatever. The volunteers help protect the future of the game, to the extent that they keep these incidents to a minimum, within reason. Perfection is not possible here and thus not required, and if anyone has genuinely acquired that impression due to the limitations of our communication, then you have Groundspeak's apologies.

 

 

MrsB

[+Wintonian]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, may I refer you to part of a post from MissJenn, to the UK Forum, about a month ago? I feel it's very relevant to this Topic.

 

About Groundspeak's relationship with the volunteers

 

Occasionally, there will be a contested decision made by a volunteer moderator or reviewer, and someone will pull out an example from another forum or caching area where the same guideline has apparently (and, in some cases, very clearly) not been followed. I believe that this actually helps my point: we give the volunteers a lot of freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes. Where those mistakes cause genuine problems, we try to clear them up afterward. But in many cases, our guidelines are more about trying to do the right thing most of the time, than aiming at some kind of perfection.

 

We accept that in a given year, a certain number of caches will be published too close to a railroad line, or with the name of a business in the title, or in a disrespectful position in a cemetery, or whatever. The volunteers help protect the future of the game, to the extent that they keep these incidents to a minimum, within reason. Perfection is not possible here and thus not required, and if anyone has genuinely acquired that impression due to the limitations of our communication, then you have Groundspeak's apologies.

 

 

MrsB

 

What a good piece - defiently worth keeping in mind.

 

I'm sure pepole also make mistakes when submitting, so it's only right that it works both ways.

[+Unkle Fester]

SEND OUT THE ZOMBIE ARMY!!!!

[+J-Way]

If a cache isn't in compliance with current guidelines, and if the concept of a non-compliant cache really twists you knickers, then drop a polite note to the local reviewer and forget about it.

[+WRASTRO]

I think that Miss Jenn's posting is a far more realistic wording than the OP's for point number 3.

 

For point 2, if you find a cache like this report it to the reviewer who published it and move on.

 

For point 1, that is the rule and it is a fair one. It seems to me that it would be rather harsh to penalize someone for placing a cache that was ok under the guidelines in effect when the cache was published. Confusing sometimes, but fair.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I think that Miss Jenn's posting is a far more realistic wording than the OP's for point number 3.

 

I can talk for miles and could have used just as many words to say "ignorant" to avoid offending delicate sensibilities but I preferred to keep it brief and just say "ignorant". I'm quite sure all intelligent persons are aware that the application of the word does neither intend nor imply insult.

[+WRASTRO]

I think that Miss Jenn's posting is a far more realistic wording than the OP's for point number 3.

 

I can talk for miles and could have used just as many words to say "ignorant" to avoid offending delicate sensibilities but I preferred to keep it brief and just say "ignorant". I'm quite sure all intelligent persons are aware that the application of the word does neither intend nor imply insult.

Wow, you really seem to have a big chip on your shoulder for some reason. I don't see how anyone could reasonably equate making an honest mistake with being ignorant or negligent. I said nothing about anyone being insulted or offended, nor did I question anyone's intelligence. You on the other hand seem to be on a mission to attempt to insult anyone you can at any opportunity. You asked for input in your original post. I guess you were just kidding.

[GOF and Bacall]

Except the words "ignorant" and "willfully negligent" are much more emotionally charged. They, and words like them, are often used to sway public opinion. To elicit a strong emotional response. What you left out was the honest mistake that can also be made. You chose words that made it sound like the reviewers in question either are stupid, or corrupt. To make them sound human would not have kept the argument going.

 

Truth is that out of all the caches in the world only a small percent fail to measure up. But what fun is there in that?

[Clan Riffster]

I'm quite sure all intelligent persons are aware that the application of the word does neither intend nor imply insult.

Very true. Ignorance is naught but a lack of specific knowledge. I think it was Will Rogers who opined that we are all ignorant about something.

If I were a reviewer, and I published a cache which violated a guideline because I wasn't aware of the violation, that would be a publication based upon my ignorance. The kewl thing about ignorance is it's a fixable phenomenon, unlike stupidity.

No worries, Parrot. Looks like no one was there weren't many insulted by your words of wisdom.

[+Walts Hunting]

Interesting rant. With a ratio of 3 1/2 posts per find maybe he should spend more time caching and less typing.

 

Since he is a self identified parrot head from Florida maybe he should ask himself "What would Jimmy Buffett do?"

 

I suspect the same thing I am going to, have a couple of margaritas and call it a night realizing there are more important things to worry about.

 

If the cache isn't compliant just hit the Ignore Listing button and never have to worry about it again.

[Mr.Yuck]

Interesting rant. With a ratio of 3 1/2 posts per find maybe he should spend more time caching and less typing.

 

Since he is a self identified parrot head from Florida maybe he should ask himself "What would Jimmy Buffett do?"

 

I suspect the same thing I am going to, have a couple of margaritas and call it a night realizing there are more important things to worry about.

 

If the cache isn't compliant just hit the Ignore Listing button and never have to worry about it again.

 

She, not he, from what I can tell. But we really don't have to go into the find per post ratio, do we? There may be some issues with one of their caches being rejected, that they feel were along the same lines. Me, I'd just ignore it, and move on. Such are the flaws of the volunteer reviewer system.

[+palmetto]

3. A new cache is published in err by a reviewer who is either ignorant or willfully negligent (probably most likely ignorant) of the cache's non-compliance.

 

Odd that, only willfully negligent is an option. How about, made a mistake. Simple honest mistake?

 

As a novice reviewer I published a cache with an exceptionally unfortunate combo of cache title and cache owner name. Clearly not suitable for a family friendly site. It got it's very own thread here. Replete with conspiracy theories! side-lines on teen suicide! Groundspeak's inconsistencies! etc.

 

It was an error. Just that.

I realized that some new caches were on queue late on a Friday night, decided to get 'em published for the weekend caching and, while essentially sleep walking, published 4 or 5 caches. Didn't notice the unfortunate collusion of the cache title with the owner's name. Error. Not willful, just error.

I no longer review while asleep ;-)

 

Thanks for asking.

[+Tequila]

Perhaps the OP could be so kind as to explain what prompted this? I get it that you are upset. But can you explain why? What happened?

 

I would have used the word "unaware" instead of "ignorant"? Equally applicable and less inflammatory.

 

It really is sad that so many of these threads turn into aggressive cyber fights.

[GOF and Bacall]

Way too soon. This thread hasn't even left the first page.

[+BBI Dragon]

It really is sad that so many of these threads turn into aggressive cyber fights.

 

With a 1 to 11 "post to cache finds" ratio, I'm not sure if I should be posting to the forums (NOT) and I agree with the quoted text.

OT in a way but brought up by the quoted text; If these forums are moderated for "topic" they should also be moderated for rudeness and gross disrespect. If there is to be a free and open exchange of thoughts in these forums, a friendly level of decorum needs to be maintained and enforced.

 

Back OT: After reading this thread I'm inclined to politely email the volunteer reviewer in my area that published a string of 6 caches a few weeks ago that were all down one street, at 1/10th to 2/10th of a mile apart, all from the same person on the same day. The guidelines clearly state that this should have been a "Multi" rather than 6 individual caches.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Interesting rant. With a ratio of 3 1/2 posts per find maybe he should spend more time caching and less typing.

 

Since he is a self identified parrot head from Florida maybe he should ask himself "What would Jimmy Buffett do?"

 

I suspect the same thing I am going to, have a couple of margaritas and call it a night realizing there are more important things to worry about.

 

If the cache isn't compliant just hit the Ignore Listing button and never have to worry about it again.

 

She, not he, from what I can tell. But we really don't have to go into the find per post ratio, do we? There may be some issues with one of their caches being rejected, that they feel were along the same lines. Me, I'd just ignore it, and move on. Such are the flaws of the volunteer reviewer system.

 

Yeah, she... and we can defer to my post about Geocaching being male-default.

 

Anyway, it wasn't a rant at all and no, there are no issues with my caches being rejected. All's fine in Margarittaville!

 

Y'all imagine such drama and take your forum so seriously sometimes. Can't imagine that someone might be a tad sarcastic. If you need me to draw you a picture, I'll get out the MS Paint and make it perfectly clear what I was actually saying. Just let me know.

[+palmetto]

Back OT: After reading this thread I'm inclined to politely email the volunteer reviewer in my area that published a string of 6 caches a few weeks ago that were all down one street, at 1/10th to 2/10th of a mile apart, all from the same person on the same day. The guidelines clearly state that this should have been a "Multi" rather than 6 individual caches.

 

Actually the guidelines state that, ".....If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache...." Please note the use of the word may , as it implies that the reviewer may not require the creation of a multi-cache. All italics, mine.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Perhaps the OP could be so kind as to explain what prompted this? I get it that you are upset. But can you explain why? What happened?

 

I would have used the word "unaware" instead of "ignorant"? Equally applicable and less inflammatory.

 

It really is sad that so many of these threads turn into aggressive cyber fights.

 

The OMG!SOMEBODY IS GAY thread where people patiently tried to explain to someone that there might be non-compliant caches in existence and it's no big deal, to which the individual continually cried "that's not fair" and lashed out with personally attacks at the moderators.

 

I was sarcastic with the notion that this is my geocaching and non-compliant caches are the worst possible thing ever. I was also sarcastic about the idea of running in circles screaming in a panic. And, really, how many non-compliant caches are there? How many of that small number were approved after the rule applicable to them was established? I don't think I'll have to take off my shoes to count them all.

 

There's nothing wrong with the word "ignorant." If I'd known it would upset the delicate sensibilities of a few who think everything's a confrontation and fight, I might've chosen a different word.

 

I'm not upset by anything other than seeing numerous people spell out something very simple and have it argued by someone absolutely refusing to see logic or reality. Since it was cluttering up the OMG!GAY thread, the topic deserves its own direct post... although I'm sure it's been talked about again and again.

 

I've never seen a non-complaint cache and although one of my local reviewers says in this thread that she was the cause of a few (and it caused a scandal), we can say that it was nothing more than ignorance. She's a good reviewer and whatever mistake she's made over time, she's obviously learned from and continues to do an outstanding job.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Perhaps the OP could be so kind as to explain what prompted this? I get it that you are upset. But can you explain why? What happened?

 

I would have used the word "unaware" instead of "ignorant"? Equally applicable and less inflammatory.

 

It really is sad that so many of these threads turn into aggressive cyber fights.

 

The OMG!SOMEBODY IS GAY thread where people patiently tried to explain to someone that there might be non-compliant caches in existence and it's no big deal, to which the individual continually cried "that's not fair" and lashed out with personally attacks at the moderators.

 

I was sarcastic with the notion that this is my geocaching and non-compliant caches are the worst possible thing ever. I was also sarcastic about the idea of running in circles screaming in a panic. And, really, how many non-compliant caches are there? How many of that small number were approved after the rule applicable to them was established? I don't think I'll have to take off my shoes to count them all.

 

There's nothing wrong with the word "ignorant." If I'd known it would upset the delicate sensibilities of a few who think everything's a confrontation and fight, I might've chosen a different word.

 

I'm not upset by anything other than seeing numerous people spell out something very simple and have it argued by someone absolutely refusing to see logic or reality. Since it was cluttering up the OMG!GAY thread, the topic deserves its own direct post... although I'm sure it's been talked about again and again.

 

I've never seen a non-complaint cache and although one of my local reviewers says in this thread that she was the cause of a few (and it caused a scandal), we can say that it was nothing more than ignorance. She's a good reviewer and whatever mistake she's made over time, she's obviously learned from and continues to do an outstanding job.

 

Pot, meet kettle!

[Mr.Yuck]

Interesting rant. With a ratio of 3 1/2 posts per find maybe he should spend more time caching and less typing.

 

Since he is a self identified parrot head from Florida maybe he should ask himself "What would Jimmy Buffett do?"

 

I suspect the same thing I am going to, have a couple of margaritas and call it a night realizing there are more important things to worry about.

 

If the cache isn't compliant just hit the Ignore Listing button and never have to worry about it again.

 

She, not he, from what I can tell. But we really don't have to go into the find per post ratio, do we? There may be some issues with one of their caches being rejected, that they feel were along the same lines. Me, I'd just ignore it, and move on. Such are the flaws of the volunteer reviewer system.

 

Yeah, she... and we can defer to my post about Geocaching being male-default.

 

Anyway, it wasn't a rant at all and no, there are no issues with my caches being rejected. All's fine in Margarittaville!

 

 

Well, since there's no rant, perhaps you can explain Jimmy Buffet to me. The guy had 3 top 40 hits (2 just barely), all from the same album in 1977. What, Pablo Cruise didn't want any of that action? Starbuck just called, they want their career back. I wish the Starland Vocal band would make a comeback.

[+The Blorenges]

I just want to chip in and say that I realised that the OP was being sarcastic and I had a grin at their OP because I could see exactly what prompted the Topic

 

However I responded seriously (post#4) because I felt that MissJenn's words were well said.

 

Let's all have a good Merry Christmas/Cool Yule/Happy Hannukkah/(insert whatever other festive celebration you enjoy... and chill...

 

But not too much ...

 

 

MrsB

Edited December 14, 2008 by The Blorenges

[+sTeamTraen]

Just on the language issue, I'm with Clan Riffster and by extension the OP, at least in theory. The OP's sentence referred to the reviewer being "ignorant... of the cache's non-compliance". However, the intervening clause " or willfully negligent (probably most likely ignorant) " might have distracted the reader's attention.

 

"Ignore" and "ignorant" are directly derived from French, and in common French usage they have much more to do with "be unaware of (a specific issue)" than "not listening to" or "generally dumb".

 

That said, the OP might want to think twice in future before using that particular sequence of words, even though they were grammatically and syntactically correct and not intended to upset anyone. The quoted post by MissJenn (one of the finest which I've ever seen in a Groundspeak forum...) also included this paragraph:

This game is only possible because of the Internet, which means we have to accept some of the limitations on human interaction which written electronic communication imposes. We don't always have time to say things in the best way possible - this post is something I've been working on for a couple of days, and when you get to read it, it will still be less than perfect.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Well, since there's no rant, perhaps you can explain Jimmy Buffet to me. The guy had 3 top 40 hits (2 just barely), all from the same album in 1977. What, Pablo Cruise didn't want any of that action? Starbuck just called, they want their career back. I wish the Starland Vocal band would make a comeback.

 

Not everybody's Johnny Mercer. That said, I'm a bit too immersed in the culture to have actually known that not everybody is completely familiar and in love with Buffett's entire music catalog. Don't you wish you had a pencil thin mustache?

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Just on the language issue, I'm with Clan Riffster and by extension the OP, at least in theory. The OP's sentence referred to the reviewer being "ignorant... of the cache's non-compliance". However, the intervening clause " or willfully negligent (probably most likely ignorant) " might have distracted the reader's attention.

 

"Ignore" and "ignorant" are directly derived from French, and in common French usage they have much more to do with "be unaware of (a specific issue)" than "not listening to" or "generally dumb".

 

That said, the OP might want to think twice in future before using that particular sequence of words, even though they were grammatically and syntactically correct and not intended to upset anyone. The quoted post by MissJenn (one of the finest which I've ever seen in a Groundspeak forum...) also included this paragraph:

This game is only possible because of the Internet, which means we have to accept some of the limitations on human interaction which written electronic communication imposes. We don't always have time to say things in the best way possible - this post is something I've been working on for a couple of days, and when you get to read it, it will still be less than perfect.

 

To clarify:

The statement read: either ignorant or willfully negligent (probably most likely ignorant) of the cache's non-compliance.

 

Reading separately, we'd say, ignorant of the cache's non-compliance and willfully negligent of the cache's non-compliance. The parenthesis (probably most likely ignorant) is to increase the probability that these things happen as a result of mistake, as opposed to intentional disregard.

 

And, yeah, I shot from the hip so, unlike MissJenn who took several days, I didn't bother to proof for all intentional misunderstandings. I figured the obvious sarcasm would forgive any missteps. Unfortunately, there are a few who didn't realise I wasn't serious.

[+trainlove]

If a cache isn't in compliance with current guidelines, and if the concept of a non-compliant cache really twists you knickers, then drop a polite note to the local reviewer and forget about it.

Of if you think the volunteer reviewers are just plain wrong and you are always right then take it up with contact@geocaching.com and let them ignore you too.

 

and of course if the caches in question are not yours, then just who do you think you are in complaining? Are you the cache police? Let me see your Groundspeak paycheck! This is just a game.

Edited December 14, 2008 by trainlove

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

If a cache isn't in compliance with current guidelines, and if the concept of a non-compliant cache really twists you knickers, then drop a polite note to the local reviewer and forget about it.

Of if you think the volunteer reviewers are just plain wrong and you are always right then take it up with contact@geocaching.com and let them ignore you too.

 

 

 

Re Your Edit: I'm in complete agreement. As far as I know, Reviewers (who are volunteers) and Groundspeak Staff will always make the time to answer genuine questions about any caches and will always seek to resolve problems.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Redneck Parrotheads

[+tozainamboku]

It really is sad that so many of these threads turn into aggressive cyber fights.

 

With a 1 to 11 "post to cache finds" ratio, I'm not sure if I should be posting to the forums (NOT) and I agree with the quoted text.

OT in a way but brought up by the quoted text; If these forums are moderated for "topic" they should also be moderated for rudeness and gross disrespect. If there is to be a free and open exchange of thoughts in these forums, a friendly level of decorum needs to be maintained and enforced.

Forum guidelines are posted here. There is a link on the top of every page. In addition there is a button on every post to report post that violate forum guidelines. The forums are moderated. The forum moderators give warnings and the "time outs" to people violating guides. Repeat offenders can be banned. Captain Clorox can even find sock puppets that attempt to get around bans. All in all I think there are relatively few "aggresive cyber fights" compared to other boards.

 

Back OT: After reading this thread I'm inclined to politely email the volunteer reviewer in my area that published a string of 6 caches a few weeks ago that were all down one street, at 1/10th to 2/10th of a mile apart, all from the same person on the same day. The guidelines clearly state that this should have been a "Multi" rather than 6 individual caches.

palmetto gave a response already and he is a reviewer.

 

Now that I've been voted most knowledgeable about the guidelines among non reviewers or Groundspeak lackeys I almost feel a responsibility to respond to this thread.

Edited December 14, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

palmetto gave a response already and he is a reviewer.

 

I thought palmetto was a she.

 

[+Tequila]

Well, since there's no rant, perhaps you can explain Jimmy Buffet to me. The guy had 3 top 40 hits (2 just barely), all from the same album in 1977. What, Pablo Cruise didn't want any of that action? Starbuck just called, they want their career back. I wish the Starland Vocal band would make a comeback.

 

Not everybody's Johnny Mercer. That said, I'm a bit too immersed in the culture to have actually known that not everybody is completely familiar and in love with Buffett's entire music catalog. Don't you wish you had a pencil thin mustache?

 

My bloodhound is named after a Buffet song, Who's The Blonde Stranger. His full kennel name is AM/CAN CH Legacy's Blonde Stranger MTX, but I call him "Tequila"

 

Great song.

[GOF and Bacall]

All in all I think there are relatively few "aggresive cyber fights" compared to other boards.

 

The other forum I frequent is a motorcycle forum. Fewer rules and less moderation. Surprisingly a much friendlier place over all than here.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

All in all I think there are relatively few "aggresive cyber fights" compared to other boards.

 

The other forum I frequent is a motorcycle forum. Fewer rules and less moderation. Surprisingly a much friendlier place over all than here.

 

The nastiness, meaniest, most unforgiving forum I was ever on was a newsgroup for bisexual women. That was the mid-90's. Very fierce. At meet-ups we'd discuss who made who cry. This is a sandbox by comparison.

 

The nicest, most polite, cordial and professional forum is ghostvillage. There's an occassional thorn but they like to stick on the religious board. Ghosthunters love each other.

[AZcachemeister]

I actually enjoy being ignorant...that means I still have a chance to learn something!

 

Non-compliant caches are published here in Arizona on a monthly basis, if not weekly.

 

On Indian Reservations

In Wilderness Areas

On Private Property without permission

Buried

On School Property without permission

 

The local reviewers can only 'see' so much about the details of the caches they publish, and are counting on the community to be their 'eyes on the scene' if there are details that have been missed in the review process.

 

I do not care to get hassled by the police or an irate property owner because someone didn't get permission, and the forty previous finders 'didn't see any problem'.

 

I prefer to alert the Cache Owner first, and then the reviewer if the owner fails to act.

[+palmetto]

I thought palmetto was a she.

Generally, yes.

 

I rather like the thread, but have to ding the thread title and sub-title at least 3 points for failing to use the word-of-the-week: thwart.

 

Non-compliant Caches, how can such a travesty to humanity possibly happen in MY geocaching?&

 

Surely it should have been:

 

Non-compliant Caches, how can such a travesty to humanity possibly be thwarted in MY geocachi

 

So much more au courant.

[Mr.Yuck]

All in all I think there are relatively few "aggresive cyber fights" compared to other boards.

 

The other forum I frequent is a motorcycle forum. Fewer rules and less moderation. Surprisingly a much friendlier place over all than here.

 

The nastiness, meaniest, most unforgiving forum I was ever on was a newsgroup for bisexual women. That was the mid-90's. Very fierce. At meet-ups we'd discuss who made who cry. This is a sandbox by comparison.

 

The nicest, most polite, cordial and professional forum is ghostvillage. There's an occassional thorn but they like to stick on the religious board. Ghosthunters love each other.

 

What no stalking and death threats? I thought that happened daily in newsgroups. That really wasn't a very good explanation of the incredible, unexplained popularity of Jimmy Buffet, you know. But I suspect you weren't around, or were too young, when he had his one hit, and two minor hits, all in 1977. Oh, and Pablo Cruise (who had much greater chart success than Jimmy Buffet) have reunited, in case anyone is interested.

 

OK, back to whatever this thread is about. I sure can't figure it out.

[+FireRef]

I think that the OP is correct in that #1 is an issue. It never really made sense for a number of the rules/guidelines changes that this website has made over the years. Many of these have done nothing to advance the game - they have only limited, excluded, or removed certain kinds of cache types or the ability to place or maintain certain kinds of caches.

 

I'm not saying that all changes that have been made are bad. I'm saying that most of the ones which have made caches "illegal" under the current guidelines have done little to advance the game. Most have only been changed because of the possibility of legal issues for the website, or because the person in charge (of the website, not the "game") decided that the kind of cache on the site wasn't what he wanted to have as a part of geocaching. Some were kept - such as virtuals and webcams, with no new ones being allowed. Some were completely locked out - locationless. Events and Mega events were added - good ideas...but if you go by the original concept of geocaching, even these aren't technically "allowed".

 

A number of normal caches have been removed or archived because of changes in the guidelines, when the issue wasn't hurting anyone or anything - mainly under the "no agendas" rule (or guideline, as they like to call them). And many still exist with this issue, but have been grandfathered (or no one has complained about them, so no one chose to enforce the rule/guideline, etc).

 

It isn't fair. Doesn't mean life has to be fair, but you should work to be as fair as possible.

 

And the easiest way to do this is to stop changing the guidelines restricting what can and cannot be done with this website. New ideas? Those are fine - but stop saying "oh, we don't like that anymore, so you can't do it".

[GOF and Bacall]

What the heck is that? An on topic reply?

What were you thinking?

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

But I suspect you weren't around, or were too young, when he had his one hit, and two minor hits, all in 1977.

 

Ooo, I like that.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I think that the OP is correct in that #1 is an issue. It never really made sense for a number of the rules/guidelines changes that this website has made over the years. Many of these have done nothing to advance the game - they have only limited, excluded, or removed certain kinds of cache types or the ability to place or maintain certain kinds of caches.

 

I'm not saying that all changes that have been made are bad. I'm saying that most of the ones which have made caches "illegal" under the current guidelines have done little to advance the game. Most have only been changed because of the possibility of legal issues for the website, or because the person in charge (of the website, not the "game") decided that the kind of cache on the site wasn't what he wanted to have as a part of geocaching. Some were kept - such as virtuals and webcams, with no new ones being allowed. Some were completely locked out - locationless. Events and Mega events were added - good ideas...but if you go by the original concept of geocaching, even these aren't technically "allowed".

 

A number of normal caches have been removed or archived because of changes in the guidelines, when the issue wasn't hurting anyone or anything - mainly under the "no agendas" rule (or guideline, as they like to call them). And many still exist with this issue, but have been grandfathered (or no one has complained about them, so no one chose to enforce the rule/guideline, etc).

 

It isn't fair. Doesn't mean life has to be fair, but you should work to be as fair as possible.

 

And the easiest way to do this is to stop changing the guidelines restricting what can and cannot be done with this website. New ideas? Those are fine - but stop saying "oh, we don't like that anymore, so you can't do it".

 

Thank you for a response that delves sensibly and respectably into the issue on the counterside of the debate. I'm of the nature that I don't mind the bit of unfairness or the occassional mistakenly placed cache. It certainly is not something worth panicking about. However, approaching the issue maturely and calmly as you've done here, a proper argument is presented about non-compliant caches that can be considered. You've set a tone on that side of the issue that hasn't been set before. I really appreciate that.

 

With that said, I do believe that both volunteers and Groundspeak staff do work to be as fair as possible in the determination and enforcement of guidelines. I don't think we can expect everyone to know and apply everything all the time. I would not even rule out the possibility of there being a bad apple from time to time, although I completely trust Groundspeak to appropriately handle such a rare circumstance internally.

 

Groundspeak is a business and with that comes considerations towards the Geocaching game that players wouldn't have to entertain. Groundspeak runs another game called Waymarking. Waymarking, borne from the Geocaches that weren't really Geocaches, grew into its own game and provided a venue for these non-cache caches that far exceeded what the Geocaching game could provide. It makes sense why the company would begin weening players off of these types of caches. Perhaps it does not appear fair that Events stay because they are also non-cache caches. I can only tell you that I think they'd have a comfy home at Waymarking.

 

Grandfathering is a courtesy. I don't believe it's for the purpose of preventing lawsuits, although I couldn't speak for the business management and considerations of Groundspeak in that area. It is only my opinion that it is not a big consideration in the decision. I think people made the best decisions that they could based on a case-by-case basis in what they believed to be the best interests of the game at that time given the information that they had. This may give an appearance of unfairness or bias in the opinions of players whose caches may have been selected while others were grandfathered, but I suspect that a review would reveal more sensible explanations than expose bad decisions. Since we know a review won't ever happen, even if it was possible, I am comfortable relying on my hunches.

[+FireRef]

I think that the OP is correct in that #1 is an issue. It never really made sense for a number of the rules/guidelines changes that this website has made over the years. Many of these have done nothing to advance the game - they have only limited, excluded, or removed certain kinds of cache types or the ability to place or maintain certain kinds of caches.

 

I'm not saying that all changes that have been made are bad. I'm saying that most of the ones which have made caches "illegal" under the current guidelines have done little to advance the game. Most have only been changed because of the possibility of legal issues for the website, or because the person in charge (of the website, not the "game") decided that the kind of cache on the site wasn't what he wanted to have as a part of geocaching. Some were kept - such as virtuals and webcams, with no new ones being allowed. Some were completely locked out - locationless. Events and Mega events were added - good ideas...but if you go by the original concept of geocaching, even these aren't technically "allowed".

 

A number of normal caches have been removed or archived because of changes in the guidelines, when the issue wasn't hurting anyone or anything - mainly under the "no agendas" rule (or guideline, as they like to call them). And many still exist with this issue, but have been grandfathered (or no one has complained about them, so no one chose to enforce the rule/guideline, etc).

 

It isn't fair. Doesn't mean life has to be fair, but you should work to be as fair as possible.

 

And the easiest way to do this is to stop changing the guidelines restricting what can and cannot be done with this website. New ideas? Those are fine - but stop saying "oh, we don't like that anymore, so you can't do it".

 

Thank you for a response that delves sensibly and respectably into the issue on the counterside of the debate. I'm of the nature that I don't mind the bit of unfairness or the occassional mistakenly placed cache. It certainly is not something worth panicking about. However, approaching the issue maturely and calmly as you've done here, a proper argument is presented about non-compliant caches that can be considered. You've set a tone on that side of the issue that hasn't been set before. I really appreciate that.

 

With that said, I do believe that both volunteers and Groundspeak staff do work to be as fair as possible in the determination and enforcement of guidelines. I don't think we can expect everyone to know and apply everything all the time. I would not even rule out the possibility of there being a bad apple from time to time, although I completely trust Groundspeak to appropriately handle such a rare circumstance internally.

 

Groundspeak is a business and with that comes considerations towards the Geocaching game that players wouldn't have to entertain. Groundspeak runs another game called Waymarking. Waymarking, borne from the Geocaches that weren't really Geocaches, grew into its own game and provided a venue for these non-cache caches that far exceeded what the Geocaching game could provide. It makes sense why the company would begin weening players off of these types of caches. Perhaps it does not appear fair that Events stay because they are also non-cache caches. I can only tell you that I think they'd have a comfy home at Waymarking.

 

Grandfathering is a courtesy. I don't believe it's for the purpose of preventing lawsuits, although I couldn't speak for the business management and considerations of Groundspeak in that area. It is only my opinion that it is not a big consideration in the decision. I think people made the best decisions that they could based on a case-by-case basis in what they believed to be the best interests of the game at that time given the information that they had. This may give an appearance of unfairness or bias in the opinions of players whose caches may have been selected while others were grandfathered, but I suspect that a review would reveal more sensible explanations than expose bad decisions. Since we know a review won't ever happen, even if it was possible, I am comfortable relying on my hunches.

 

(Takes a few minutes to mop up the puddle of sarcasm dripped into this thread by the first responding paragraph from above, and then continues...)

 

I believe that originally, there was a consideration for what was best for the game. I believe then that as it became more of a business, and there was more of a profit potential, and as the game grew, more of a liability potential, that many decisions for what is allowed and what is not were made in the best interests of the business rather than the game.

 

As you stated, a number of things have been moved to Waymarking, mainly because TPTB decided that, in their opinion, things which they said were geocaches to start with, were no longer geocaches. If we go back to the original definition, most of what is considered a geocache today wouldn't count. No meetings, no micros with only a log (because you can't trade anything, and that was 2/3 of the original rules of the game), no webcams, no virtuals, no reverse/locationless, no multis, no mystery/unknowns. You would have containers placed in places with things to trade. Oh wait, considering what was in the original cache, food would be ok - so would alcohol. And if I remember correctly, even the person who actually started the game didn't agree with the way it was being run. I would think that since he created the game, he gets the final say...

 

Many of these things have changed - some for the better, and some to the detriment of the game. new cache types have been added in the past - and some have been removed. As I said before - if you use the excuse that a virtual isn't really a cache, then a micro with no room for trade items isn't either - but they haven't made that decision. Both don't match the original rules. But decisions were made whereby one was kicked out, and the other was kept. This makes little sense, and the explanations which were given make just as little sense.

 

In the end, my point is that many times, perfectly good caches become non-compliant caches (even though they are still perfectly good caches) because of decisions made by TPTB that do not necessarily advance the game, but are made for liability reasons. There was no reason for that non-compliant cache to become non-compliant in the first place. That was my point.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

(Takes a few minutes to mop up the puddle of sarcasm dripped into this thread by the first responding paragraph from above, and then continues...)

 

I believe that originally, there was a consideration for what was best for the game. I believe then that as it became more of a business, and there was more of a profit potential, and as the game grew, more of a liability potential, that many decisions for what is allowed and what is not were made in the best interests of the business rather than the game.

 

As you stated, a number of things have been moved to Waymarking, mainly because TPTB decided that, in their opinion, things which they said were geocaches to start with, were no longer geocaches. If we go back to the original definition, most of what is considered a geocache today wouldn't count. No meetings, no micros with only a log (because you can't trade anything, and that was 2/3 of the original rules of the game), no webcams, no virtuals, no reverse/locationless, no multis, no mystery/unknowns. You would have containers placed in places with things to trade. Oh wait, considering what was in the original cache, food would be ok - so would alcohol. And if I remember correctly, even the person who actually started the game didn't agree with the way it was being run. I would think that since he created the game, he gets the final say...

 

Many of these things have changed - some for the better, and some to the detriment of the game. new cache types have been added in the past - and some have been removed. As I said before - if you use the excuse that a virtual isn't really a cache, then a micro with no room for trade items isn't either - but they haven't made that decision. Both don't match the original rules. But decisions were made whereby one was kicked out, and the other was kept. This makes little sense, and the explanations which were given make just as little sense.

 

In the end, my point is that many times, perfectly good caches become non-compliant caches (even though they are still perfectly good caches) because of decisions made by TPTB that do not necessarily advance the game, but are made for liability reasons. There was no reason for that non-compliant cache to become non-compliant in the first place. That was my point.

 

Obviously some changes had to be made to gain a broader acceptance of Geocaching and keep it from getting banned. If food and alcohol were still allowed, I doubt there would be many parks willing to cooperate with geocachers. In this respect, there is a liability issue but there is also the advancement of the game. I do not believe decisions are made to intentionally damage the integrity or enjoyment of the game, although we all know that you can't please everyone all the time. And micros... well, I'm sure there's a thread or two already about those! Hehehe.

 

It's understandable that inconsistency can be confusing. But I think there is a balance being struck between honoring the roots of the game with the elements of challenge and change. Games have to evolve. Virtuals, Webcams and Locationless cannot be included in these claims of inconsistency. For the sake of those caches themselves, Geocaching could not support them to their potential. That became Waymarking. These types of caches still work on Terracaching because Terracaching is still small. If Terracaching ever experiences the growth spurt that Geocaching has, they may have to reconsider their organisation as well.

 

I won't comment on the origins of Geocaching, except to say that Jeremy Irish was the one who took it to the next level where so many globally could play as a unified community.

 

Your apparent experience with senseless changes and explanations is an experience that I don't have, so I'm not really qualified to comment one way or the other about that. You say that explanations given to you about specific situations did not make sense to you, so I can do nothing more than take you at your word. I do believe there is more to the story. There always seems to be three sides to a story. But I can accept your feelings about what happened without trying to argue something I know nothing about. I hope you can accept my skepticism about this being a system-wide problem.

 

I don't believe Groundspeak staff is rolling in money from the decisions they've made. It is a very popular game but since they don't receive revenue on each individual cache being published and found, the real action isn't bringing them money. There's advertising, merchandising and premium accounts as far as I can tell. They haven't even taken the opportunity to charge separately for premium accounts to the games. If you have a premium account for Geocaching, it's through Groundspeak, which gains you the same privileges to Waymarking and Wherigo. From these decisions, I don't think they are looking to soak players for all that they can. If increasing revenue in obvious and easy ways isn't viewed as being in the best interests of the company because it's not in the best interests of the game, I have to wonder how different Groundspeak running like a business really is from Groundspeak running games. I'm seeing the games being put before the owner's pocketbook. But, again, I'm spectulating based on my gutt. I have no numbers or inside information to back up my statements.

 

Thank you again for a cordial and insightful reply on the counter-argument of this debate.

[+FireRef]

(Takes a few minutes to mop up the puddle of sarcasm dripped into this thread by the first responding paragraph from above, and then continues...)

 

I believe that originally, there was a consideration for what was best for the game. I believe then that as it became more of a business, and there was more of a profit potential, and as the game grew, more of a liability potential, that many decisions for what is allowed and what is not were made in the best interests of the business rather than the game.

 

As you stated, a number of things have been moved to Waymarking, mainly because TPTB decided that, in their opinion, things which they said were geocaches to start with, were no longer geocaches. If we go back to the original definition, most of what is considered a geocache today wouldn't count. No meetings, no micros with only a log (because you can't trade anything, and that was 2/3 of the original rules of the game), no webcams, no virtuals, no reverse/locationless, no multis, no mystery/unknowns. You would have containers placed in places with things to trade. Oh wait, considering what was in the original cache, food would be ok - so would alcohol. And if I remember correctly, even the person who actually started the game didn't agree with the way it was being run. I would think that since he created the game, he gets the final say...

 

Many of these things have changed - some for the better, and some to the detriment of the game. new cache types have been added in the past - and some have been removed. As I said before - if you use the excuse that a virtual isn't really a cache, then a micro with no room for trade items isn't either - but they haven't made that decision. Both don't match the original rules. But decisions were made whereby one was kicked out, and the other was kept. This makes little sense, and the explanations which were given make just as little sense.

 

In the end, my point is that many times, perfectly good caches become non-compliant caches (even though they are still perfectly good caches) because of decisions made by TPTB that do not necessarily advance the game, but are made for liability reasons. There was no reason for that non-compliant cache to become non-compliant in the first place. That was my point.

 

Obviously some changes had to be made to gain a broader acceptance of Geocaching and keep it from getting banned. If food and alcohol were still allowed, I doubt there would be many parks willing to cooperate with geocachers. In this respect, there is a liability issue but there is also the advancement of the game. I do not believe decisions are made to intentionally damage the integrity or enjoyment of the game, although we all know that you can't please everyone all the time. And micros... well, I'm sure there's a thread or two already about those! Hehehe.

 

It's understandable that inconsistency can be confusing. But I think there is a balance being struck between honoring the roots of the game with the elements of challenge and change. Games have to evolve. Virtuals, Webcams and Locationless cannot be included in these claims of inconsistency. For the sake of those caches themselves, Geocaching could not support them to their potential. That became Waymarking. These types of caches still work on Terracaching because Terracaching is still small. If Terracaching ever experiences the growth spurt that Geocaching has, they may have to reconsider their organisation as well.

 

I won't comment on the origins of Geocaching, except to say that Jeremy Irish was the one who took it to the next level where so many globally could play as a unified community.

 

Your apparent experience with senseless changes and explanations is an experience that I don't have, so I'm not really qualified to comment one way or the other about that. You say that explanations given to you about specific situations did not make sense to you, so I can do nothing more than take you at your word. I do believe there is more to the story. There always seems to be three sides to a story. But I can accept your feelings about what happened without trying to argue something I know nothing about. I hope you can accept my skepticism about this being a system-wide problem.

 

I don't believe Groundspeak staff is rolling in money from the decisions they've made. It is a very popular game but since they don't receive revenue on each individual cache being published and found, the real action isn't bringing them money. There's advertising, merchandising and premium accounts as far as I can tell. They haven't even taken the opportunity to charge separately for premium accounts to the games. If you have a premium account for Geocaching, it's through Groundspeak, which gains you the same privileges to Waymarking and Wherigo. From these decisions, I don't think they are looking to soak players for all that they can. If increasing revenue in obvious and easy ways isn't viewed as being in the best interests of the company because it's not in the best interests of the game, I have to wonder how different Groundspeak running like a business really is from Groundspeak running games. I'm seeing the games being put before the owner's pocketbook. But, again, I'm spectulating based on my gutt. I have no numbers or inside information to back up my statements.

 

Thank you again for a cordial and insightful reply on the counter-argument of this debate.

 

I don't believe that advancement of the game requires that things be removed or banned simply because one person feels that they shouldn't be a part of the game. Your statement that Terracaching allows these but this site doesn't, and only because of the size, makes no sense. Just because something is small doesn't mean it can allow more things. If it works over there, it would work here - they just have to be willing to accept it, rather than making excuses and banning those types of caches. The only one which makes any kind of sense to have been removed was locationless. That is the definition of what a waymark category is - so that was as close to a good decision as I can see. Virtuals and webcams are no different from events. The requirement that an event have a "log" is silly - it doesn't have a container, and isn't permanent, as is required of every other cache type. So 2 cache types (Event and Mega-Event) exist directly in contradiction to the rule which states that "event caches" are not permitted - they must be permanent (as permanent as a cache can be - not a point of debate for this argument). Virtuals and webcams have actually more right under the current rules to exist than do event caches. But again, as I said, decisions are made by the person in charge, not by the people who, without them, the site wouldn't exist. Take away the people who list the caches, and you have an empty website.

 

As for not supporting them to their potential, they could have if they wanted to. Again, I will raise (and not complete the statement) the reason given to me by them - they was too much work sorting out the "wow" factor. In many cases, there is absolutely no wow factor in a lot of caches today. Why make that requirement, if you don't have it for all kinds of caches. That LPC I picked up, and the one I placed as a cache, have no WOW factor - only a smiley for anyone wanting to get it. That, in itself, is enough wow for many people who play. For those who it isn't enough of a wow factor, they filter out micro containers, and are happy with their long walks in the woods. I, for my part, will do either.

 

As for keeping it from getting banned, I don't believe that would have happened. I know there is a large amount of work done to keep it from getting a bad reputation, because of bomb scares and such. But like anything, there will always be people who don't agree with other people doing something. As you said, you can't please all the people all the time. I just don't think they listen to the people. I think they just do what they want to do, and we have to accept it because it is his website (even if not his game).

 

As for taking it to the next level, yes, Jeremy did. But I think he did a disservice to the game as well. He has turned it essentially into his game, rather than a game for everyone. Even the person who came up with the concept felt it had been corrupted. We have to deal with google ads (even premium members... just not as many) - I, and others as well, as evidenced by the complaints when they first came out, think that degraded the website immensely. I know they're not rolling in money, but they definitely have more than enough to get by, based on the way they run their business, send people out to various events, etc. I don't pretend to know their financial situation, but I can't see them hurting at this point.

 

Finally, there is always more to the story. There are always reasons which are not explained. This website has a history of hiding things often from people. I am not a conspiracy person - but many times we are told "that is the way it is, live with it", in somewhat nicer terms, but that is basically what is being said. Since they are so good at preserving history, you can find many of these examples throughout the forum threads - why this was done, why this cache was canned, why this guideline was changed. "Because we said so" or "because it violates a policy" - as I point out in my sig file, everything is offensive to someone somewhere at sometime. So simply because I state my opinion on here, it offends someone - and I should be suspended for it - and have been, in several cases. Most times, with no recourse, with little answer, and even calling the company, being brushed off or not getting return phone calls with messages which have been left. (Except for one case... I was able to speak with someone at GS who could answer my questions - but got the same "this is what we're doing so you have to live with it" speach at the end anyway.) And in many cases, people who oppose the system get suspended from posting - i have spoken with several. Many times, it is not out of disrespect. It is simply because they aren't willing to take the company line and just accept it. Something's wrong with a company who doesn't listen to the people who use it.

 

Or that promise things and never deliver (returning Archived caches to the google maps being the prime example).

 

I like the game - I like the sport - I don't like the way this website has twisted it for their own profit and limited the playability of it for their own protection. I don't dislike it enough to stop playing on here, because there isn't another website which has the number of caches available. But it isn't good enough to keep me from expressing my dissatisfaction with some decisions and the way some people are treated because they question Jeremy's decisions.

[+sbell111]

... As I understood the previous explanations, non-compliant caches may happen as a result of:

1. An already published cache is grandfathered in after a new rule would make it non-compliant;

2. A published cache is changed into a non-compliant way without a reviewer being aware that this change was made;

3. A new cache is published in err by a reviewer who is either ignorant or willfully negligent (probably most likely ignorant) of the cache's non-compliance.

 

... After you're done with that, recover your laptop and write a message to your local reviewer, asking what is up with this particular non-compliant cache. ...

As the owner of a grandfathered cache that violates three of the current guidelines I have to wonder why you would refer these grandfathered caches to a reviewer.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

... As I understood the previous explanations, non-compliant caches may happen as a result of:

1. An already published cache is grandfathered in after a new rule would make it non-compliant;

2. A published cache is changed into a non-compliant way without a reviewer being aware that this change was made;

3. A new cache is published in err by a reviewer who is either ignorant or willfully negligent (probably most likely ignorant) of the cache's non-compliance.

 

... After you're done with that, recover your laptop and write a message to your local reviewer, asking what is up with this particular non-compliant cache. ...

As the owner of a grandfathered cache that violates three of the current guidelines I have to wonder why you would refer these grandfathered caches to a reviewer.

 

So a reviewer could explain that this cache was grandfathered in.

As far as I understand, grandfathered caches are non-compliant but secure. So there ought to be no reason why a reviewer cannot handle answering a simple question about the cache from an interested player. It's not a secret and nothing to be ashamed of.

[+sbell111]

... As I understood the previous explanations, non-compliant caches may happen as a result of:

1. An already published cache is grandfathered in after a new rule would make it non-compliant;

2. A published cache is changed into a non-compliant way without a reviewer being aware that this change was made;

3. A new cache is published in err by a reviewer who is either ignorant or willfully negligent (probably most likely ignorant) of the cache's non-compliance.

 

... After you're done with that, recover your laptop and write a message to your local reviewer, asking what is up with this particular non-compliant cache. ...

As the owner of a grandfathered cache that violates three of the current guidelines I have to wonder why you would refer these grandfathered caches to a reviewer.

 

So a reviewer could explain that this cache was grandfathered in.

As far as I understand, grandfathered caches are non-compliant but secure. So there ought to be no reason why a reviewer cannot handle answering a simple question about the cache from an interested player. It's not a secret and nothing to be ashamed of.

Alternatively, you could just take a quick peek at the 'hidden' date to see if the cache predates the guideline. That way you wouldn't waste teh reviewer's time.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I don't believe that advancement of the game requires that things be removed or banned simply because one person feels that they shouldn't be a part of the game.

 

I think your claim of "one person" is dramatic and unrealistic to the point of the discussion. We are talking about an evolution of the game. I believe the players begin the evolution and Geocaching.com sets perimeters as it feels is necessary to accomodate this evolution, instead of telling players, "This is never allowed. The game will always remain the same." That would be catering to a minority of the players or "one person", and I believe you've already criticised the notion of that.

 

Your statement that Terracaching allows these but this site doesn't, and only because of the size, makes no sense. Just because something is small doesn't mean it can allow more things. If it works over there, it would work here - they just have to be willing to accept it, rather than making excuses and banning those types of caches.

 

I strongly disagree. Locationless, webcams and virtuals are organised at Waymarking.com with a directory of categories. Geocaching could not have accomodated that without a severe change. Since you have already voiced your disagreement against minor changes, I don't think you would have appreciated such a change to the Geocaching game. Back when there were a handful of these types of caches, they were manageable and there did not need any further organisation for them to properly handle them. Terracaching experiences this low volume, which allows them to be tossed in with the container caches without much mind.

 

At a time when Terracaching has a higher volume and sees that the quality of these types of caches is insecure and unmanageable, they may have to reconsider organisation.

 

So 2 cache types (Event and Mega-Event) exist directly in contradiction to the rule which states that "event caches" are not permitted - they must be permanent (as permanent as a cache can be - not a point of debate for this argument). Virtuals and webcams have actually more right under the current rules to exist than do event caches. But again, as I said, decisions are made by the person in charge, not by the people who, without them, the site wouldn't exist. Take away the people who list the caches, and you have an empty website.

 

I understand that point. You've made it before. I said in return that Events would be more than welcome in Waymarking if we were allowed to work a category for them that was to our own liking. Many Waymarking discussions have been had about Earthcaches and we've come to the consensus that Earthcaches don't have strict enough criteria to establish them as special and consistent enough for a Waymarking category. We've got categories that blow Earthcaches out of the water. At Waymarking, we can't really put all the blame for our unhappiness on "The Powers That Be" or pretend there's a man behind the curtain pulling all the switches. Waymarking is very player-dependent with the staff and volunteers helping players along with the official bits.

 

Of course, I see Geocaching as very player-dependent with the staff and volunteers helping players along with the official bits, but there seems an eagerness to compose conspiracy theories and doomsday hypothesis about the staff and volunteers from a certain population of the players. I could spectulate as to why this is but I don't understand it and honestly don't know why this population behaves this way.

 

In many cases, there is absolutely no wow factor in a lot of caches today. Why make that requirement, if you don't have it for all kinds of caches. That LPC I picked up, and the one I placed as a cache, have no WOW factor - only a smiley for anyone wanting to get it.

 

Why blame Groundspeak for that? You're suggesting here that staff and volunteers are obligated to make a subjective judgment on something they cannot physically see, and leave the cache owner completely unaccountable for his/her own lack of sensibility in placing a perceivably un'wow' cache. The 'wow' factor exists as a guideline but it is one that an individual should take personally accountable when placing the cache, not require reviewers to decide based on the limited information available through a website.

 

I just don't think they listen to the people. I think they just do what they want to do, and we have to accept it because it is his website (even if not his game). As for taking it to the next level, yes, Jeremy did. But I think he did a disservice to the game as well. He has turned it essentially into his game, rather than a game for everyone. Even the person who came up with the concept felt it had been corrupted. We have to deal with google ads (even premium members... just not as many) - I, and others as well, as evidenced by the complaints when they first came out, think that degraded the website immensely. I know they're not rolling in money, but they definitely have more than enough to get by, based on the way they run their business, send people out to various events, etc. I don't pretend to know their financial situation, but I can't see them hurting at this point.

 

Well, if none of them are hurting, God bless them. My family's hurting right now. That said, I might still make it to Tennessee in May and I wouldn't get to claim it as a business expense for my taxes. Google ads do not bother me. They are on-topic and g-rated. I have Gmail. There's Google ads all over that in a much less subdued way than they are here.

 

This is more of making Jeremy Irish the boogieman. While I understand that he's burned in effigy occassionally when someone doesn't like something about the website, I don't accept it. It might be my work history that realises what is required to run a professional website of this caliber, it might just be my preference not to blame all my problems on someone who's not responsible. It's just not acceptable behavior to blame it all on one person.

 

While there are plenty of people calling for locationless, virtuals and webcams to return to Geocaching, there are plenty more of us in Waymarking who don't want our game compromised. Groundspeak makes decisions based on the entire player base, not just a section who feels they've squeeked their wheels the loudest and don't bother to listen to what the others are saying. My opinion here isn't a unique and unshared opinion. Have you listened to what other people are saying that don't agree with you? Have you considered that maybe there are more who think like I do and want things a certain way, too? I'm not being confrontational with these questions. These are sincere questions.

 

Finally, there is always more to the story. There are always reasons which are not explained. This website has a history of hiding things often from people. I am not a conspiracy person - but many times we are told "that is the way it is, live with it", in somewhat nicer terms, but that is basically what is being said. Since they are so good at preserving history, you can find many of these examples throughout the forum threads - why this was done, why this cache was canned, why this guideline was changed. "Because we said so" or "because it violates a policy" - as I point out in my sig file, everything is offensive to someone somewhere at sometime. So simply because I state my opinion on here, it offends someone - and I should be suspended for it - and have been, in several cases. Most times, with no recourse, with little answer, and even calling the company, being brushed off or not getting return phone calls with messages which have been left. (Except for one case... I was able to speak with someone at GS who could answer my questions - but got the same "this is what we're doing so you have to live with it" speach at the end anyway.) And in many cases, people who oppose the system get suspended from posting - i have spoken with several. Many times, it is not out of disrespect. It is simply because they aren't willing to take the company line and just accept it. Something's wrong with a company who doesn't listen to the people who use it.

 

Or that promise things and never deliver (returning Archived caches to the google maps being the prime example).

 

In my honest opinion, I think there's a percentage of forum participants who take their stake in the game far too seriously than is healthy. I think they've allowed the specific individual decisions of minor things to affect the joy they have in playing the game. Archived caches on Google Maps... Really?! This is important? It can see where it might be nice for one specific use but important enough to cause a stir? No. That's plain out petty.

 

A premium account does not buy an individual holdings into Groundspeak. It just doesn't work as a democracy and to expect that everyone should get a vote and private audience over every pocket issue is unreasonable and disrespectful. This sense of entitlement is inappropriate.

 

From what I have observed of the choices that Groundspeak has made as a business, there is no attempt to soak people for money. Google ads do not turn to players for money. Google ads annoy people who are easily annoyed. When the easily annoyed people are annoyed, should this make news and should the world change revolution to suit their preferences? Of course not.

 

I like the game - I like the sport - I don't like the way this website has twisted it for their own profit and limited the playability of it for their own protection. I don't dislike it enough to stop playing on here, because there isn't another website which has the number of caches available. But it isn't good enough to keep me from expressing my dissatisfaction with some decisions and the way some people are treated because they question Jeremy's decisions.

 

Respectfully, I think you need to own your hypocrasy. You have the choice to only Terracache or Navicache. You even have the choice to create your own FireRefCaching.com to establish the game how you believe it would be done fairly and rightly. When you find yourself short of revenue, remember that you are ad-free. Taking advantage of the ability to be productive for your own ideas is far more respectable than claiming Jeremy Irish runs an unfair business. To reject your own capability to take responsibility for your displeasure in Geocaching in favor of taking advantage of what the site offers while complaining incessantly about the things you don't like is not reasonable adult behavior.

 

I don't mean these words to be a personal attack against you. You have placed yourself into the context of the argument so I'm addressing you as part of my response, but I feel confident extending this statement on a general level.

 

Frankly, I think it's irrational to continually throw darts at Jeremy Irish just because he is "the face" of Geocaching.com. He's not a man behind the curtain pulling switches. Groundspeak is a company. There's more than just him. There are several people. They have meetings. They probably even have a table that they sit around for these meetings. Has there been unprofessional missteps in dealing with the customer base? I don't doubt it and there are a few forum discussions that can be interpreted to fit this accusation. All my experiences with Groundspeak Customer Service has been cordial, professional and prompt. I also don't see any of the hissy fits against the company in Waymarking that go on in Geocaching. I can conclude that the staff is improving in their public relations and therefore claims of unprofessionalism and bias using old forum correspondence is irrelevant to a current discussion.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

As the owner of a grandfathered cache that violates three of the current guidelines I have to wonder why you would refer these grandfathered caches to a reviewer.

 

So a reviewer could explain that this cache was grandfathered in.

As far as I understand, grandfathered caches are non-compliant but secure. So there ought to be no reason why a reviewer cannot handle answering a simple question about the cache from an interested player. It's not a secret and nothing to be ashamed of.

Alternatively, you could just take a quick peek at the 'hidden' date to see if the cache predates the guideline. That way you wouldn't waste teh reviewer's time.

 

I wouldn't presume that everyone is able to contrast a hide date against a guideline implementation date.

 

It would be nice not to waste a reviewer's time, but I think they'd rather receive a cordial email asking about something simple and accepting that answer than having a huge blow-up OMG IT'S NOT FAIR on the forum.

[+FireRef]

I think your claim of "one person" is dramatic and unrealistic to the point of the discussion. We are talking about an evolution of the game. I believe the players begin the evolution and Geocaching.com sets perimeters as it feels is necessary to accomodate this evolution, instead of telling players, "This is never allowed. The game will always remain the same." That would be catering to a minority of the players or "one person", and I believe you've already criticised the notion of that.

 

No - it is not. Jeremy makes the decisions on here - I'm not saying one player - I'm saying the person who owns the website which the game is named after. People don't say "I'm going terracaching" - they say geocaching. It's like Kleenex - they're facial tissues, but Kleenex has the common name used for them, which provides a HUGE name recognition factor, and possibly affects their business.

 

I strongly disagree. Locationless, webcams and virtuals are organised at Waymarking.com with a directory of categories. Geocaching could not have accomodated that without a severe change. Since you have already voiced your disagreement against minor changes, I don't think you would have appreciated such a change to the Geocaching game. Back when there were a handful of these types of caches, they were manageable and there did not need any further organisation for them to properly handle them. Terracaching experiences this low volume, which allows them to be tossed in with the container caches without much mind.

 

At a time when Terracaching has a higher volume and sees that the quality of these types of caches is insecure and unmanageable, they may have to reconsider organisation.

 

I don't see that - there are hundreds of thousands of caches - and more being added (and some being archived) every day. Saying there would be too many to handle is not correct - they would have been able to handle them fine, if they were willing. I'm not saying Waymarking is a bad thing - obviously you like it - I liked the idea, except for removing virtuals and webcams from this website, but it is still user un-friendly, and doesn't have the ability to download chunks of them to make visiting them easy.

 

I understand that point. You've made it before. I said in return that Events would be more than welcome in Waymarking if we were allowed to work a category for them that was to our own liking. Many Waymarking discussions have been had about Earthcaches and we've come to the consensus that Earthcaches don't have strict enough criteria to establish them as special and consistent enough for a Waymarking category. We've got categories that blow Earthcaches out of the water. At Waymarking, we can't really put all the blame for our unhappiness on "The Powers That Be" or pretend there's a man behind the curtain pulling all the switches. Waymarking is very player-dependent with the staff and volunteers helping players along with the official bits.

 

Of course, I see Geocaching as very player-dependent with the staff and volunteers helping players along with the official bits, but there seems an eagerness to compose conspiracy theories and doomsday hypothesis about the staff and volunteers from a certain population of the players. I could spectulate as to why this is but I don't understand it and honestly don't know why this population behaves this way.

 

I don't dispute that for Waymarking, but for geocaching, there is one person making the decisions.

 

Why blame Groundspeak for that? You're suggesting here that staff and volunteers are obligated to make a subjective judgment on something they cannot physically see, and leave the cache owner completely unaccountable for his/her own lack of sensibility in placing a perceivably un'wow' cache. The 'wow' factor exists as a guideline but it is one that an individual should take personally accountable when placing the cache, not require reviewers to decide based on the limited information available through a website.

 

That was the criteria THEY established for themselves with the "WOW" factor required for virtuals. If they could do it for that, why aren't they doing it for everything? Lots less people would be complaining about lame micros (and I like just about any kind of cache - i don't have a problem with lame micros!)

 

Well, if none of them are hurting, God bless them. My family's hurting right now. That said, I might still make it to Tennessee in May and I wouldn't get to claim it as a business expense for my taxes. Google ads do not bother me. They are on-topic and g-rated. I have Gmail. There's Google ads all over that in a much less subdued way than they are here.

 

I have Yahoo mail and they just went nutz with the ads in the last month or two. In most cases, I am very unlikely to click on an ad just because it is there - I intentionally avoid them. When I want to buy something, I do some research to find out what is the best - not rely on who is spending more money to advertise. I am not hurting now although I know a number of people are. This doesn't change how they should run the website.

 

This is more of making Jeremy Irish the boogieman. While I understand that he's burned in effigy occassionally when someone doesn't like something about the website, I don't accept it. It might be my work history that realises what is required to run a professional website of this caliber, it might just be my preference not to blame all my problems on someone who's not responsible. It's just not acceptable behavior to blame it all on one person.

 

When that person single-handedly makes the rules and decides what is part of the game and what isn't, regardless of the people who play the game's opinions, this is not correct.

 

While there are plenty of people calling for locationless, virtuals and webcams to return to Geocaching, there are plenty more of us in Waymarking who don't want our game compromised. Groundspeak makes decisions based on the entire player base, not just a section who feels they've squeeked their wheels the loudest and don't bother to listen to what the others are saying. My opinion here isn't a unique and unshared opinion. Have you listened to what other people are saying that don't agree with you? Have you considered that maybe there are more who think like I do and want things a certain way, too? I'm not being confrontational with these questions. These are sincere questions.

 

Your game wouldn't exist except for the fact that Jeremy decided that these components didn't fit his idea of geocaching. So to placate the people who wanted them to remain, against his wishes, he created a new website for it. They should never have left here.

 

In my honest opinion, I think there's a percentage of forum participants who take their stake in the game far too seriously than is healthy. I think they've allowed the specific individual decisions of minor things to affect the joy they have in playing the game. Archived caches on Google Maps... Really?! This is important? It can see where it might be nice for one specific use but important enough to cause a stir? No. That's plain out petty.

 

No - its a simple fact - they promised to return them when people complained that they were removed. They have not done so, and it has been probably at least half a year. You flip a switch to turn something off, you can just as easily flip a switch to turn it back on. I have a big problem with people who promise something and then don't deliver. (And almost as big a problem with people who promise something, but refuse to give any kind of timeline - "We'll do it, but wheneven we decide to get around to it.")

 

Frankly, I think it's irrational to continually throw darts at Jeremy Irish just because he is "the face" of Geocaching.com. He's not a man behind the curtain pulling switches. Groundspeak is a company. There's more than just him. There are several people. They have meetings. They probably even have a table that they sit around for these meetings. Has there been unprofessional missteps in dealing with the customer base? I don't doubt it and there are a few forum discussions that can be interpreted to fit this accusation. All my experiences with Groundspeak Customer Service has been cordial, professional and prompt. I also don't see any of the hissy fits against the company in Waymarking that go on in Geocaching. I can conclude that the staff is improving in their public relations and therefore claims of unprofessionalism and bias using old forum correspondence is irrelevant to a current discussion.

 

Incorrect - he is the man behind the curtain pulling the switches. What he says, goes. Regardless of what we think or want.