Jump to content

New policy regarding maintenance?


Nozzletime

Recommended Posts

December 13 by CacheDrone (0 found)

Over one month ago the owner of this listing was contacted because at that time they had not logged in for over two months. As there has been no reply or activity since, this listing has been archived.

 

Is this a new policy of Groundspeak?

Link to post

I'm sure each reviewer manages their areas slightly differently but from what I've seen lately, there usually are several DNFs from experienced cachers and/or a NM log before the reviewer posts a Reviewer's note. Depending on the situation, they may even Disable the cache. Then, a month later, they may archive the cache if there has been no response (either an e-mail to the reviewer or a log/note posted by the owner).

Edited by Cache O'Plenty
Link to post

December 13 by CacheDrone (0 found)

Over one month ago the owner of this listing was contacted because at that time they had not logged in for over two months. As there has been no reply or activity since, this listing has been archived.

 

Is this a new policy of Groundspeak?

 

This is only being done on Virtual's from what I can see.

Link to post

December 13 by CacheDrone (0 found)

Over one month ago the owner of this listing was contacted because at that time they had not logged in for over two months. As there has been no reply or activity since, this listing has been archived.

 

Is this a new policy of Groundspeak?

 

This is only being done on Virtual's from what I can see.

 

12 out of 52 existing in the Province, assuming This Bookmark list was up to date and complete. I have seen virtuals archived for lack of "maintenance" before, but I don't think I've seen it before in a systematic manner.

Link to post

both caches listed are virtuals that should really be Benchmarks. Although I have seen a couple virtuals around Washington D.C. be archived recently too. I wonder if there is something going on with Groundspeak to actively root out and archive virtuals that do not have active owners any more?

Link to post

Looking at the page for the first one, it doens't appear that there is any more to this story than the OP stated. That was a very bad decision to simply archive a cache because the owner hasn't been online for a while, when there are no maintenance issues with it.

 

Apparently Groundspeak is not only not allowing new virtuals, but looking to get rid of all of the older ones. Wow... a very bad decision... nice to see where this game is going.

Link to post

The volunteer reviewers have discression to do whatever they want.

 

If a cache has had a needs maintenance log and the owner 'ignores' emails from the reviewer or has not even logged into geocaching.com for 'months' then the reviewer can archive the cache.

 

If a cache has a lot of DNF's and no recent finds and also ignores emails froma vigilant reviewer, that reviewer can and will disable that cache.

 

There are probably many more cases like this and like yours.

Link to post

I'll bet there is a bit more to the story than what we have seen here.

 

I frankly do not see any great loss over losing a few virtuals because the owner has gone MIA. If that person has some good reason for being out of contact for a prolonged period of time then I am certain that these caches can be un-archived as well.

Link to post

I'll bet there is a bit more to the story than what we have seen here.

 

I frankly do not see any great loss over losing a few virtuals because the owner has gone MIA. If that person has some good reason for being out of contact for a prolonged period of time then I am certain that these caches can be un-archived as well.

 

Read the page - "This cache will not be Unarchived."

 

There was no needs maintenance log.

 

This was a bad decision. The reviewers can't just remove caches because they don't like virtuals - I don't remember that one in the rules. "Caches may be archived by a reviewer because of their personal preferences for or against a specific cache type." - Missed that one in the guidelines.

Link to post

Did you catch the link to the guidelines....

 

You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

 

The guidelines seem to cover this well and are not "new".

Link to post

both caches listed are virtuals that should really be Benchmarks. Although I have seen a couple virtuals around Washington D.C. be archived recently too. I wonder if there is something going on with Groundspeak to actively root out and archive virtuals that do not have active owners any more?

 

There are no benchmarks in Canada to the best of my knowledge. Only in the U.S.

Link to post

There are no benchmarks in Canada to the best of my knowledge. Only in the U.S.

None that are logable through geocaching.com, but perhaps there are, or should be, a category for benchmark disks for Canada for the many millions that perhaps exist up there.

I know that when I went to the Rendevous Quebec Mega-Event I 'found' many benchmarks, perhaps 50, but of course got nothing out of that.

Link to post

There are no benchmarks in Canada to the best of my knowledge. Only in the U.S.

None that are logable through geocaching.com, but perhaps there are, or should be, a category for benchmark disks for Canada for the many millions that perhaps exist up there.

I know that when I went to the Rendevous Quebec Mega-Event I 'found' many benchmarks, perhaps 50, but of course got nothing out of that.

Link to post

Did you catch the link to the guidelines....

 

You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

 

The guidelines seem to cover this well and are not "new".

 

It was not abandoned, because people were still logging it. It wasn't even requested that the owner do anything specific - most reviewers post something on the cache page which indicates the owner needs to contact them in regards to a problem - Not just arbitrarily say "Wasn't here for 2 months, everything is find with the cache but I don't like them not being around... so i'm canning their cache."

 

It was an inappropriate, arbitrary decision, at least in my opinion, which doesn't seem to count for much around here, but if my caches started becoming archived on the site because I wasn't able to, or interested in, logging into the site for a month or two, I'd have a pretty big fit over it. It is not the right thing to do.

 

The problem is that reviewers are not notified for needs maintenance logs - only for SBA or disabling logs. They need to be notified for NM logs as well, so they can actually deal with issues which exist, instead of making more work for themselves (and less caches for us) when nothing is wrong with a cache other than their dislike of that type.

 

Since TPTB don't seem interested in returning virtuals anytime soon (or as they say, at all), it really doesn't make sense to not keep the ones which are still around on the site as long as humanly possible.

Link to post

My best guess is that a virtual with an absentee owner is an open invitation for armchair caching. A physical cache with an absent owner at least has the possibility of future cachers noticing that a claimed find was not in the log, but with a virtual, only the cache owner knows if the log is valid.

 

Not stating any opinion on whether or not the reviewer was right in archiving them... just guessing at one possible motive.

Link to post

My best guess is that a virtual with an absentee owner is an open invitation for armchair caching. A physical cache with an absent owner at least has the possibility of future cachers noticing that a claimed find was not in the log, but with a virtual, only the cache owner knows if the log is valid.

 

Not stating any opinion on whether or not the reviewer was right in archiving them... just guessing at one possible motive.

 

That would be my guess.

Link to post

It was not abandoned, because people were still logging it.

You do realize that makes no sense, right? Just because people are logging it doesn't mean the owner is still checking email and performing the duties required of a cache owner.

 

Most likely, the reviewer was contacted by people who were getting their emails bounced by a no longer valid account. If the owner is no longer monitoring the cache's emails, that constitutes abandoning the cache.

 

As noted in the guidelines, the owner's responsibilities (regardless of cache type) include "quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

Link to post

It was not abandoned, because people were still logging it.

You do realize that makes no sense, right? Just because people are logging it doesn't mean the owner is still checking email and performing the duties required of a cache owner.

 

Most likely, the reviewer was contacted by people who were getting their emails bounced by a no longer valid account. If the owner is no longer monitoring the cache's emails, that constitutes abandoning the cache.

 

As noted in the guidelines, the owner's responsibilities (regardless of cache type) include "quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

I don't think you will get an email bounce. gc.com is sending the email out, not the logging cacher.

 

I think it is more likely that they want to take away the ability of armchair cachers to grab a bunch of smileys. Although I am at a loss to understand why someone would care that much about a smiley. Especially an illegitimate one.

 

And maybe they are slowly but surely clearing the deck of virtuals.

Link to post

December 13 by CacheDrone (0 found)

Over one month ago the owner of this listing was contacted because at that time they had not logged in for over two months. As there has been no reply or activity since, this listing has been archived.

 

Is this a new policy of Groundspeak?

 

This is not a new policy. If you look at the guidlines for placing a cache, it is pretty straightforward:

 

Virtual Cache and Webcam Cache Maintenance Guidelines

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility for their cache listings.

 

Although the cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your cache's web page and respond to inquiries. In the case of Virtual Caches and Webcam Caches you must periodically check the physical location. You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache.

 

[/i]You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

 

The owner will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing. Grandfathered caches may not be unarchived.

Link to post

You know what - as much of a problem as Groundspeak has with caches that it liked at one time and decided it didn't like at another... maybe they should just delete the entire lot of them - Remove them from finds lists from people, remove them from cache listings that people have posted, etc.

 

This is silly.

 

They don't want them - they run the game - they should just get rid of them.

 

Or bring them back like a lot of us want.

 

But this policy of basically writing the rules so they can do whatever they want with them, and not be consistent, is what causes a lot of problems for this game. Virts are gone, earthcaches are here. You can't reconcile this, no matter how hard you try. Many virts had educational components involved.

 

GS just needs to stop trying to write the rules for the game they want it played, and let the players play the way they want to. They list the caches - they don't run the game.

Link to post

But this policy of basically writing the rules so they can do whatever they want with them, and not be consistent, is what causes a lot of problems for this game. Virts are gone, earthcaches are here. You can't reconcile this, no matter how hard you try. Many virts had educational components involved.

 

If there was another organization willing to oversee educational virtuals, maybe Groundspeak would consider adding those back as another type.

 

GS just needs to stop trying to write the rules for the game they want it played, and let the players play the way they want to. They list the caches - they don't run the game.

 

You can play the game any way you want to. You just can't list geocaches here that don't meet the listing guidelines.

Link to post

You know what - as much of a problem as Groundspeak has with caches that it liked at one time and decided it didn't like at another... maybe they should just delete the entire lot of them - Remove them from finds lists from people, remove them from cache listings that people have posted, etc.

 

This is silly.

 

They don't want them - they run the game - they should just get rid of them.

 

Or bring them back like a lot of us want.

 

But this policy of basically writing the rules so they can do whatever they want with them, and not be consistent, is what causes a lot of problems for this game. Virts are gone, earthcaches are here. You can't reconcile this, no matter how hard you try. Many virts had educational components involved.

 

GS just needs to stop trying to write the rules for the game they want it played, and let the players play the way they want to. They list the caches - they don't run the game.

 

If my 'hobby' caused me as much angst as your hobby seems to be causing you, I think I would find a new hobby.

 

Maybe you are the guy who should start up a competitive geocaching web site. How about making virtuals your first offering?

Link to post

...a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache....

 

A reasonable time will never ever under any circumstance be quicker than time and life allow. Real life in all it's forms trumps the living snot out of a cache. Your quote is the guidlines but it's not reality. Never will be.

 

Active and interested is where I'm at on the subject.

Link to post

...a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache....

 

A reasonable time will never ever under any circumstance be quicker than time and life allow. Real life in all it's forms trumps the living snot out of a cache. Your quote is the guidlines but it's not reality. Never will be.

 

Active and interested is where I'm at on the subject.

 

In the case of the archived virtuals which triggered this thread, the CO's had not been "signed on" to the gc.com website for 3 months.

 

I understand your comment about life and reality, but 3 months is a fairly reasonable amount of time. Particularly considering the CO was given a month's notice, via email, that they needed to do something.

Edited by Tequila
Link to post

...a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache....

 

A reasonable time will never ever under any circumstance be quicker than time and life allow. Real life in all it's forms trumps the living snot out of a cache. Your quote is the guidlines but it's not reality. Never will be.

 

Active and interested is where I'm at on the subject.

 

In the case of the archived virtuals which triggered this thread, the CO's had not been "signed on" to the gc.com website for 3 months.

 

I understand your comment about life and reality, but 3 months is a fairly reasonable amount of time. Particularly considering the CO was given a month's notice, via email, that they needed to do something.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here....

 

Could the cache owner be using a new name for caching now? For years we had the ability to change our caching names as often as we liked. Then a programming change ended that ability. There was a time frame of a few months when you were basically told to "just start a new account" if you wanted to change your name (and relog any finds you had and adopt your caches over to yourself etc). A short while later, the admin realized they could change the names over for people...but how many people has already made new accounts and just started fresh (no transfers or relogging)?

 

Could the email that is attached to the old account be one they rarely check? Or that bounces GC mail?

Or could someone have had two accounts the whole time, one for most caches and another for all their virts and not even realize the cache had email? (Just last month I noticed a lot of people complaining they weren''t getting log notifications on caches). Could the owner be on a tour of duty or working overseas for six months with only spotty Internet access? Could the owner be logging in every day on a newer account and the reviewer not notice/know it?

 

I love virtuals. Generally speaking, if a virt is still around, it has been there a good long while now and has usually withstood the test of time. If it is still being logged pretty regularly, it is more often than not a better one. We seek them out when we travel--they often take us to wonderful places we would not have discovered otherwise.

 

If there isn't a problem with the virt, I don't understand the hurry to get rid of them. Of course, where there is no longer access to the interesting feature, missing information, and no way to contact anyone who will check up on it) there may be a reason to archive a virt....but it ought not be a "must do, just because I can" situation. I'd rather see the virts be adoptable.

 

Please don't let them archive all the virts in DC. I'm planning a trip there next spring to see my daughter and wayyyyy high on our list are stops to many of the virts near her home.

Link to post

Please don't let them archive all the virts in DC. I'm planning a trip there next spring to see my daughter and wayyyyy high on our list are stops to many of the virts near her home.

 

Ach. Did ten of them a few years back. One was great! Two were interesting. Most were geolitter. (You really thought that that was interesting?!?!?)

 

Yes, visiting the site is listed as one of the requirements for maintenance. Actual maintenance is maintaining the cache. Answering e-mails. Deleting bogus logs. Checking that the requireents have been met.

I can think of one in DC, and another in NYC, that were unavailable for six months, due to construction. That didn't stop people from logging them anyway. Proper maintenance would have deleted those logs.

Oh, well.

Link to post
If there was another organization willing to oversee educational virtuals, maybe Groundspeak would consider adding those back as another type.

That was the idea with Earthcaches. Unfortunately there has been no real oversight. Some Earthcaches are excellent, some are as lame as lamposts. Sadly, if I were Groudspeak, I would consider it a failed experiment.

 

I too hope they won't forcibly archive virts. I hope they will integrate waypointing, with the ability to show selected categories on maps and in PQs. I have in the past also mentioned the possibilty of outside approval being a possible avenue for new categories. But I haven't seen it working.

 

Edward

Link to post

Please don't let them archive all the virts in DC. I'm planning a trip there next spring to see my daughter and wayyyyy high on our list are stops to many of the virts near her home.

 

There are more and more physical caches in the District these days. I've done a couple.

 

A DC Tardis is a nice hide, right near the zoo.

Link to post

December 13 by CacheDrone (0 found)

Over one month ago the owner of this listing was contacted because at that time they had not logged in for over two months. As there has been no reply or activity since, this listing has been archived.

 

Is this a new policy of Groundspeak?

 

Nope, it's not a new policy of Groundspeak. It is consistent with the listing "Guidelines that apply to grandfathered cache types" in the same way that any other cache that is not being maintained gets archived. Some times this happens immediately and sometimes I give them a month to take some action including emailing me back.

 

Emails were sent through their profile links during the first week of November to the owners of about 25 virtual caches and many of them logged in subsequently. The lack of response to the email sent by me also serves to demonstrate that the owner is not responding to legitimate logs.

Link to post

Emails were sent through their profile links during the first week of November to the owners of about 25 virtual caches and many of them logged in subsequently. The lack of response to the email sent by me also serves to demonstrate that the owner is not responding to legitimate logs.

 

Was there any indication of problems with the virtuals, or did you just decide to target virtuals whose owner had not signed on recently?

Link to post

An owner who hasn't logged on in months is, by definition, a "problem with the virtual." To confirm that this is the case, a reviewer can send an e-mail. (It's possible that the owner of the virtual IS monitoring their e-mails, even actively answering visitors, without logging in at the website.) If the owner doesn't respond, then there's a violation of the maintenance guideline quoted above. We send the "hello, are you still active?" message to make sure there's no mistake and to give the benefit of a doubt. We recognize that virtuals are somewhat rare birds and endangered species. Once archived, they cannot be unarchived. Reviewers give a "light touch" to this particular guideline section, perhaps checking only once every year or two to see whether the owners of virtual caches in their territory remain active. That may explain why the OP may perceive this as a "new" policy. It's been there for years -- well before the site stopped accepting new virtual cache submissions.

Link to post

Virtual Cache and Webcam Cache Maintenance Guidelines

 

"The cache owner will assume all responsibility for their cache listings.

 

Although the cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your cache's web page and respond to inquiries. In the case of Virtual Caches and Webcam Caches you must periodically check the physical location. You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache.

 

You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

 

The owner will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing. Grandfathered caches may not be unarchived."

Link to post

 

This is silly.

 

They don't want them - they run the game - they should just get rid of them.

 

Grandfathering was allowed out of respect for and the benefit of active virtual owners. I don't think they would agree with you on this point.

 

Grandfathering allows those owners to decide when their individual virtuals will go down for the count. Once owners are no longer active or don't otherwise keep to the guidelines then the virtual cache should be archived.

Link to post

 

This is silly.

 

They don't want them - they run the game - they should just get rid of them.

 

Grandfathering was allowed out of respect for and the benefit of active virtual owners. I don't think they would agree with you on this point.

 

Grandfathering allows those owners to decide when their individual virtuals will go down for the count. Once owners are no longer active or don't otherwise keep to the guidelines then the virtual cache should be archived.

 

I don't agree with that either... and I wrote it. The point I'm making is that GS needs to start being consistent and stop being "We're gonna do whatever we want, even if our rules (sorry, GUIDELINES) say otherwise. If the rules (sorry again, GUIDELINES) don't agree, we'll just write a new one to make it fit, or do it anyway and if people realize we're not following our own rules (GUIDELINES), too bad."

 

You can't have new Earthcaches allowed (which are virts) and not other virts. You can't allow virts and webcams to remain, if your rules say they don't.

 

They should exist - they should be allowed to have new ones. My point is that they are not consistent, and don't seem to care that they're not. See signature file below.

Link to post

Would virtuals draw special attention in this case...or are all caches checked periodically to see if the owner still logs onto the site?

 

In this particular case, all cache types were checked/archived. As I mentioned earlier, several traditionals etc. that had extended Needs Maintenance with no owner response were also archived.

 

I would characterize this recent action as a simple database cleanup. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Link to post

 

I don't agree with that either... and I wrote it. The point I'm making is that GS needs to start being consistent and stop being "We're gonna do whatever we want, even if our rules (sorry, GUIDELINES) say otherwise. If the rules (sorry again, GUIDELINES) don't agree, we'll just write a new one to make it fit, or do it anyway and if people realize we're not following our own rules (GUIDELINES), too bad."

 

You can't have new Earthcaches allowed (which are virts) and not other virts. You can't allow virts and webcams to remain, if your rules say they don't.

 

They should exist - they should be allowed to have new ones. My point is that they are not consistent, and don't seem to care that they're not. See signature file below.

 

Could I politely suggest that (as it's getting near the end of the year) you start drawing up a new policy document for yourself (sorry, NEW RESOLUTIONS) regarding your posts on these forums?

 

How about the following? -

 

"I will try to accept that the vast majority of geocachers are happy to play the game according to Groudspeak's Guidelines."

 

"I will try to accept that of the above vast majority only a very small minority visit these forums".

 

"I will try to accept that of the above very small minority only another very small minority actually agree with my incessant complaints and nit-picking."

 

"I will try to enjoy my Geocaching in 2009 with a more positive mind-set and will quit moaning."

 

I wish you an enjoyable holiday season and joyous 2009.

 

MrsB :)

Edited by The Blorenges
Link to post

The point I'm making is that GS needs to start being consistent and stop being "We're gonna do whatever we want, even if our rules (sorry, GUIDELINES) say otherwise. If the rules (sorry again, GUIDELINES) don't agree, we'll just write a new one to make it fit, or do it anyway and if people realize we're not following our own rules (GUIDELINES), too bad."

I need for you to stop pasting this quote into any thread you wander into. Your posts to this thread are disrespectful both to Groundspeak and to the volunteer whose actions are being discussed. Cache Drone was not acting arbitrarily, but rather enforcing a specific written guideline.

 

Groundspeak is not writing new guidelines and the reviewer did not "do it anyway" and ignore any rules. Here are the virtual cache maintenance guidelines in the form in which they existed in November 2003:

 

Although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries and periodically check the location. You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site. The poster will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the virtual cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

Pretty much the same thing they say today, in substance. I used to archive unmaintained virtuals way back then. A five-year old rule is pretty consistent and is not a "new one."

 

You can't have new Earthcaches allowed (which are virts) and not other virts. You can't allow virts and webcams to remain, if your rules say they don't.

Groundspeak moved earthcaches to Waymarking. There was a strong outcry against that move. They were moved back. Groundspeak originally proposed to archive all the existing virtuals at the time when Waymarking launched. There was a strong outcry, so it never happened.

 

Darn that Frog for being silly and listening to the community. It sometimes results in perceived inconsistency.

Link to post
The problem is that reviewers are not notified for needs maintenance logs - only for SBA or disabling logs. They need to be notified for NM logs as well

I think our reviewer periodically runs a PQ on caches with the NM icon because every so often, caches that have that icon get a friendly reminder.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to post

 

Could the email that is attached to the old account be one they rarely check? Or that bounces GC mail?

If they didn't transfer over the cache to the new account, that would constitute abandonment of the cache.

You can't adopt caches that no longer meet the guidelines, so changing to a new account you can't transfer your virtual caches with you.

Link to post

 

Could the email that is attached to the old account be one they rarely check? Or that bounces GC mail?

If they didn't transfer over the cache to the new account, that would constitute abandonment of the cache.

You can't adopt caches that no longer meet the guidelines, so changing to a new account you can't transfer your virtual caches with you.

At the time when you had to create a new account, and transfer over your caches, that restriction didn't exist.

Link to post

You can't have new Earthcaches allowed (which are virts) and not other virts. You can't allow virts and webcams to remain, if your rules say they don't.

 

They should exist - they should be allowed to have new ones. My point is that they are not consistent, and don't seem to care that they're not. See signature file below.

 

If we were to assume your position to be correct, it appears to be covered in the guidelines;

 

"First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache."

 

That being said, GC has determined Earthcaches to be a different type of cache with different listing requirements from Virtuals, just like a multi and a puzzle may share some attributes, yet are distinctly different.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to post

The point I'm making is that GS needs to start being consistent and stop being "We're gonna do whatever we want, even if our rules (sorry, GUIDELINES) say otherwise. If the rules (sorry again, GUIDELINES) don't agree, we'll just write a new one to make it fit, or do it anyway and if people realize we're not following our own rules (GUIDELINES), too bad."

I need for you to stop pasting this quote into any thread you wander into. Your posts to this thread are disrespectful both to Groundspeak and to the volunteer whose actions are being discussed. Cache Drone was not acting arbitrarily, but rather enforcing a specific written guideline.

 

Groundspeak is not writing new guidelines and the reviewer did not "do it anyway" and ignore any rules. Here are the virtual cache maintenance guidelines in the form in which they existed in November 2003:

 

Although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries and periodically check the location. You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site. The poster will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the virtual cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

Pretty much the same thing they say today, in substance. I used to archive unmaintained virtuals way back then. A five-year old rule is pretty consistent and is not a "new one."

 

You can't have new Earthcaches allowed (which are virts) and not other virts. You can't allow virts and webcams to remain, if your rules say they don't.

Groundspeak moved earthcaches to Waymarking. There was a strong outcry against that move. They were moved back. Groundspeak originally proposed to archive all the existing virtuals at the time when Waymarking launched. There was a strong outcry, so it never happened.

 

Darn that Frog for being silly and listening to the community. It sometimes results in perceived inconsistency.

 

No - no perception at all - reality.

 

As for the quote above, I am not being disrespectful to anyone. I am pointing out the way that some people see the way that GS.com makes their decisions. See my signature file - Everything is objectionable (or can be interpreted as disrespectful) to/by someone. It was not intended to be disrespectful - it is a statement of fact. The guideline says "may be archived" - this means that there was an arbitrary decsision by that reviewer. He made a decision which I disagree with, and which I have every right to disagree with.

 

There has been a loud outcry for the return of virtuals on this website. It has not happened. (and I'm sure there were people who supported, and still do, the archiving of all virts and webcams)

 

There was a loud outcry for things like the return of archived caches to the geocaching.com google map. It was decided they would do it. As usual, no timeline was given, and it has not happened. (and been a long time).

 

And for the person later in the thread (and right above this post) that pointed out the GC.com policy that there is no precident, that has to be the most inconsistent policy of all. That isn't a rule or a guideline - it just gives them the ability to be able to do whatever they want, instead of being consistent.

 

This isn't Calvinball (from the old Calvin and Hobbes comics), where you can make up any rule you want anytime you want, it just has to be different from any other rule already created. But it is certainly looking more and more like it.

 

Rules (or guidelines, as you always seem to like to say) change. I understand that. But they need to change for a good reason, and they need to be consistently enforced, and they need to apply to everything. If the old speed limit on a road is 35, and they lower it to 25, I don't get grandfathered in because I drove on the road before, so I don't need to go that speed limit - I can just use the old one. Or a new stop sign - I always went through that intersection because it was not a stop in my direction - they made it a 4 way stop - so I can still ignore it, because I'm grandfathered in. This doesn't happen. (and when it does, from past experience, people get hurt or killed)

 

Giving the reviewers the latitude to sometimes enforce the rules whenever they feel like it is like saying to a police officer "Feel free to pull over anyone you want whenever you feel like it - give tickets to some, let others go, and sometimes, give tickets for things that aren't really in the laws, but are your interpretations of the laws." Oh, and the person can never go before a judge to argue - they pay the ticket or go to jail regardless of what any other police officer would do.

 

Consistency. How hard can it be? A lot easier than "The Frog" is making it out to be. Even just how reviewers contact people. Some like email, some like reviewer notes or regular notes on pages. Some prefer other methods. Our area seems to have 2-5 active reviewers at any given time. I can't pick who reviews my caches - it appears to be random. Some hassle you when you have an inactive cache for a short time, some for longer times, and some, appear to never do this at all. Some want email updates - some want cache page updates, etc. Some give 2 weeks to hear from you, some 3, some 4, some say "shortly".

 

Another inconsistency would be the lack of answers for when things will be done. I ask for my lawn to be mowed by a lawn mowing service, they give me a couple day range when it will be done. I am asked by officers in the FD to get something done, I have to give them a date it will be done by. I call customer service for a refund, I expect a response indicating how long before I receive the check. I purchase something, the place I buy it from expects me to pay under some kind of circumstances (Cash now, check now, credit card over time, etc) with a set time frame of some kind. Ask GS.com to do something? They don't call you back or email you back under any kind of schedule when you call their office, and they don't give any kind of time frame when they will do things, even when they agree to do them (see above). I guarantee they woulnd't continue to be in business if their web hosting company or ISP said "you need to pay us by this date" and they said "we'll pay you sometime in the future, but we're not going to say when". You can't conduct business this way and expect to keep your customers happy - or even keep your customers.

 

Consistency.

 

That's all I ask. It's not that hard. As Nike would say, "Just do it."

Edited by FireRef
Link to post

And I don't know this but just maybe the CO is serving a six month tour of duty in our Armed services and can't comply.

 

...a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache....

 

A reasonable time will never ever under any circumstance be quicker than time and life allow. Real life in all it's forms trumps the living snot out of a cache. Your quote is the guidlines but it's not reality. Never will be.

 

Active and interested is where I'm at on the subject.

 

In the case of the archived virtuals which triggered this thread, the CO's had not been "signed on" to the gc.com website for 3 months.

 

I understand your comment about life and reality, but 3 months is a fairly reasonable amount of time. Particularly considering the CO was given a month's notice, via email, that they needed to do something.

Link to post

Rules (or guidelines, as you always seem to like to say) change. I understand that. But they need to change for a good reason, and they need to be consistently enforced, and they need to apply to everything. If the old speed limit on a road is 35, and they lower it to 25, I don't get grandfathered in because I drove on the road before, so I don't need to go that speed limit - I can just use the old one. Or a new stop sign - I always went through that intersection because it was not a stop in my direction - they made it a 4 way stop - so I can still ignore it, because I'm grandfathered in. This doesn't happen.

Maybe a better example would be a law requiring new cars to have smog equipment. The law "grandfathers" cars already on the road. You don't hear people complaining, "Why can't I have a car without smog equipment. It's inconsistent if you allow all those old cars on the road." When the NHL adopted a rule mandating players wear helmets, veteran players were grandfathered and could opt out of wearing a helmet.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to post

Rules (or guidelines, as you always seem to like to say) change. I understand that. But they need to change for a good reason, and they need to be consistently enforced, and they need to apply to everything. If the old speed limit on a road is 35, and they lower it to 25, I don't get grandfathered in because I drove on the road before, so I don't need to go that speed limit - I can just use the old one. Or a new stop sign - I always went through that intersection because it was not a stop in my direction - they made it a 4 way stop - so I can still ignore it, because I'm grandfathered in. This doesn't happen.

Maybe a better example would be a law requiring new cars to have smog equipment. The law "grandfathers" cars already on the road. You don't hear people complaining, "Why can't I have a car without smog equipment. It's inconsistent if you allow all those old cars on the road." When the NHL adopted a rule mandating players wear helmets, veteran players were grandfathered and could opt out of wearing a helmet.

 

And neither of those make sense. Lets allow the people with polluting cars continue to pollute the environment. And when we add a safety rule to a sport, lets let the players who want to put themselves in greater danger than the current rules allow do so.

 

Come on - I live in a state where seatbelts are required for all passengers in a car, but within a year or two of passing that law, they passed a law allowing bikers to decide if they wanted to wear a helmet or not. Inconsistency. That is a major problem. (also considering I am one of the people who has to scrape the bikers off the road when they get in an accident... helmets SHOULDN'T be a choice... the bikers don't have to scrape themselves off the road...)

 

Inconsistency is bad. Period.

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