Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Wooden Cyclist

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

GC171MH Super Fly #30 "Jiendo" is a popular cache in Grand Rapids Michigan. Its popular not because it gets found a lot, just the opposite. Its was published October 29, 2007 and has never been found. If you go to the listing you will see that there have been 27 DNF's posted along with many notes. There is a controversy brewing.

 

On November 5 a reviewer in California, Nomex, took it upon himself or herself to archive the listing. According to one of the Michigan reviewers, DeRock, none of the Michigan reviewers asked for assistance from Nomex on this or any other caches in Michigan.

 

Many of the area cachers are very upset about Nomex's actions. If you take the time to read some of the posts for this cache you will see that many of the cachers have put a lot of effort toward finding this cache and their posts are entertaining to read. Jiendo is somewhat of a celebrity cache in these parts and now it has been taken away from us by a reviewer that is on the other side of the country.

 

This morning I sent an email to the reviewer that is primarily responsible for that part of the Michigan asking about Nomex's actions and what may become of the whole controvers, but I haven't heard back. I expect to soon because Tiki has been a very responsive reviewer in the past.

 

Has anyone else had any experience with a reviewer meddling with the caches in another state?

 

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that he is from out-of-state seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the archival.

 

After reading it - I am not sure why it was archived - I suspect there is a bit more to the story but I am not bothered one bit by the actual location of the reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, where the reviewer is isn't a problem. The fact that the CO went out and checked on it as requested and the listing was archived anyway is a bit more unsettling. I'd be interested in hearing the whole story.

Share this post


Link to post

That's really odd that they archived it because it has never been found. Why would that warrant an archival? :)

Share this post


Link to post

If it had never been found and the owner was no longer active I could understand it. There would be no way to confirm it's continued existence.

Share this post


Link to post

The owner appears to have checked on the cache as requested by the reviewer. The owner specifically verified that the cache was still there.

 

The reviewer then archived the cache anyway: "As there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements."

 

It would appear, then, that the reviewer is calling the cache owner a liar.

 

Unless the reviewer made an honest mistake due to haste (didn’t see the owner’s verification note), then what other interpretation is there?

 

I can't accept that interpretation. It's too hard to believe a reviewer would do that. My bet is on the haste/mistake thing. It’s the only theory that makes sense to me. Let's hope that's all it is.

Share this post


Link to post

Nomex was caught up with his workload and offered to help out other reviewers who felt they were behind on monitoring cache maintenance issues. A Michigan reviewer asked for help, and Nomex volunteered to assist. Perhaps not everyone got the memo. Not a big deal.

 

Nomex applied his judgment to a particular cache. It's an unusual case. Perhaps that judgment can be reexamined and, if the cache was archived in error, the simple remedy is to unarchive it. Not a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Nomex applied his judgment to a particular cache. It's an unusual case. Perhaps that judgment can be reexamined and, if the cache was archived in error, the simple remedy is to unarchive it. Not a big deal.

 

I second what my learned colleague wrote. Do remember that it's a Saturday morning though, and reviewers are out geocaching, and Groundspeak lackeys have the day off. Please be patient and not pile on here. Go out and find a cache. Wish I could.

 

~erik~ -

Share this post


Link to post

No reason to get defensive guys, it's only a question. Remember that it was a reviewer who said to bring the conversation here to the forums.

Share this post


Link to post

Superfly has hidden a few caches and knows his way around the caching block so to speak, I doubt an error was made tht he couldn't have fixed by now without the archival. Although I haven't tried for the cache yet, it was on my lis "to do" list since it IS a somewhat legend around here!

 

I do hope Nomex will activate it back to it's rightful status.

Share this post


Link to post

Reading the reviewer note and the log of owner maintenance, this seems odd.

Share this post


Link to post

Please pardon my posting under my personal account instead of my reviewer account.

 

-------------

 

I am going to jump in here briefly to hopefully clarify a few things.

 

According to one of the Michigan reviewers, DeRock, none of the Michigan reviewers asked for assistance from Nomex on this or any other caches in Michigan.

You have misinterpreted what I said. My exact words were, "Rusty, Tiki, and myself are not involved in Nomex's actions with this cache and it wouldn't be right for us to comment on them." (the bolding is mine)

 

Has anyone else had any experience with a reviewer meddling with the caches in another state?

I explained in my original reviewers note to the cache page that Nomex's action (with respect to the maintenance sweep) were perfectly normal and that in fact one of Michigan's former reviewers used to do this all the time in other states. I trust Nomex explicitly and welcome his help.

 

When you call Nomex a "rogue reviewer" you do so hastily, and to be generous, without correctly interpreting the few facts available. You owe him an apology!

 

I am specifically being very to the point here. It's not my place to clarify Nomex's actions with regards to the archival. Or to explain why the cache was archived. Or anything else! Please don't read into my words more than I wrote.

 

I think StarBrand summed it up perfectly, "I suspect there is a bit more to the story."

 

Deane

 

-DeRock-

Share this post


Link to post

Has no one else ever clicked the wrong button and not realized it?

 

This could be nothing more than the guy thinking he was archiving Cache X when in reality he was archiving Cache Y. Most of those review notes appear to be cut/paste.

 

I would give the guy the benefit of the doubt and let him/her resolve it with the CO.

Share this post


Link to post

Well since you guys have circled the wagons, would it be too much to ask if it is appropriate to archive a cache that the owner has checked on and reported that it is indeed still there?

 

"I think StarBrand summed it up perfectly, "I suspect there is a bit more to the story."" - Deane

You think (s)he did or (s)he did? Why not just explain the special circumstances?

Edited by iWikeCake

Share this post


Link to post

GC171MH Super Fly #30 "Jiendo" is a popular cache in Grand Rapids Michigan. Its popular not because it gets found a lot, just the opposite. Its was published October 29, 2007 and has never been found. If you go to the listing you will see that there have been 27 DNF's posted along with many notes. There is a controversy brewing.

 

On November 5 a reviewer in California, Nomex, took it upon himself or herself to archive the listing. According to one of the Michigan reviewers, DeRock, none of the Michigan reviewers asked for assistance from Nomex on this or any other caches in Michigan.

 

Many of the area cachers are very upset about Nomex's actions. If you take the time to read some of the posts for this cache you will see that many of the cachers have put a lot of effort toward finding this cache and their posts are entertaining to read. Jiendo is somewhat of a celebrity cache in these parts and now it has been taken away from us by a reviewer that is on the other side of the country.

 

This morning I sent an email to the reviewer that is primarily responsible for that part of the Michigan asking about Nomex's actions and what may become of the whole controvers, but I haven't heard back. I expect to soon because Tiki has been a very responsive reviewer in the past.

 

Has anyone else had any experience with a reviewer meddling with the caches in another state?

 

Another state? Antarctica, California, Lansing MI. The location doesn't matter none of them would be personally checking the cache. Publishing a new cache, I would prefer the reviewer be from the state just to increase the likelihood of knowing local laws issues and concerns but once a cache is published one reviewer needs no more information than another regardless of location.

 

As for archiving a serviceable cache because of time unfound, I knew it was going to happen.

I didn't think it would happen to an active CO or a traditional.

 

I'm inclined to believe this was an accident.

Share this post


Link to post

Has no one else ever clicked the wrong button and not realized it?

 

This could be nothing more than the guy thinking he was archiving Cache X when in reality he was archiving Cache Y. Most of those review notes appear to be cut/paste.

 

I would give the guy the benefit of the doubt and let him/her resolve it with the CO.

 

Yah, I posted a found it log for a cache in Colorado. Having never been anywhere in Colorado other than DEN (international airport), it is rather rediculous; especialy because I had posted several in Alberta (canada) earlyer, and later in the day. I only found it a week or so later.

Share this post


Link to post

So you sent an email and didn't get a response in a few hours and you start calling someone names. Seems to me a little patience is in order. At least a three day wait for a return email would be sensible and since the cache has never been found what's the rush.

Share this post


Link to post

While the choice of wording in the title may be, um, unfortunate, the idea to bring it to this forum was a reviewers not the OP's.

 

November 6 by -DeRock- (0 found)

Greetings,

 

Please do not post notes to this cache page. The correct place to discuss the situation or make comments is in your local, state, or national geocaching forums.

Share this post


Link to post

It's also possible that the reviewer acted to archive a cache that he believed was not actually present. (*)

 

(*: I know nothing of the cache owner and I don't want this seen as a slight on his or her integrity. I only offer it as a possible explanation of the reviewer's motives that doesn't assume incompetence)

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that Nomex (out of state) is intervening on this cache appears to be entirely legitimate, per his note of October 4.

 

Now, as to the archival: yes, there are caches in Africa which haven't been found after 4 years - indeed, there's one in France which hasn't been found after 8 years (it's at 14,000 feet on Mont Blanc). But these caches typically do not have 27 DNFs on them, from seekers whose finds total many tens of thousands. I think that the reviewer is entitled to wonder why that is.

 

I'm going to guess that the cache is placed somewhere really difficult - maybe you have to climb the bridge supports to get to it. In that case, a one-line mail to the reviewer and the problem is solved (from the reviewer's point of view); there would be a reasonable explanation why nobody has yet found the cache, and the reviewer is not going to pass that information on. But if the cache owner won't give that information, the reviewer is going to start thinking that there's something else going on. Perhaps the cache is an elaborate hoax (and this thread is part of that hoax); perhaps the coordinates have a typo in them which nobody has noticed yet; perhaps the cache is located somewhere that the owner does not wish to reveal to the reviewer because it violates one or more placement guidelines. We have no way to know, but the cache owner's attitude - in here and in the notes on the cache listing - is not helping.

 

Let me try an analogy (always a dangerous business in a forum :huh:). Suppose you want to get a great gift for your significant other for their birthday. This requires you to hang around outside the gift store for some time before it opens, to be absolutely sure that nobody else gets the gift you've seen in the window. Then, 5 minutes before the store opens, you get an urgent phone call from the office, and you have to abandon your wait. You decide to come back tomorrow at the same time. But that night, the store is burgled, and when the police look at the security camera footage, there you are, with your car's license plate showing, and as far as the police are concerned, you're checking out the security arrangements. The police turn up at your home to ask a few questions, and they're not smiling. Your significant other is in the room. Are you going to /a/ ask if you can step outside with them for a second while you explain, or /b/ demand to see their ID and service record, and write to the local newspaper about "rogue cops"?

Share this post


Link to post

We have no way to know, but the cache owner's attitude - in here and in the notes on the cache listing - is not helping.

Looking at Super Fly's notes, does the negative attitude you seem to imply have a cloaking field I cannot penetrate? Are Super Fly's posts to this thread only invisible to me?

Do false accusations against the CO help resolve the problem?

The archival note claims that Super Fly is a lier, isn't that unfounded accusation against Super Fly more than enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Looking at Super Fly's notes, does the negative attitude you seem to imply have a cloaking field I cannot penetrate? Are Super Fly's posts to this thread only invisible to me?

Do false accusations against the CO help resolve the problem?

I apologise for my inaccuracy in suggesting that the CO had posted here. Thank you for pointing this out in such a helpful and constructive way. I was, perhaps, in my pre-coffee Sunday morning way, confusing the tone of some of the posts in here with the tone of some of the CO's notes on the cache, since in their attitude to the reviewers, the two are not entirely different.

 

In particular, the CO's decision to post that

Nomex is still watching this cache 8:12 am eastern time was the last time he checked it out.
- quoting from the "Premium Member Only Cache" logging facility - seems to me to be about as provocative as calling someone a "rogue reviewer". Returning to my analogy, it's like standing outside your house and shouting abuse at officers as they drive past. It's your constituional right to do it, but it may not convince everyone that you're a model citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
I think that the reviewer is entitled to wonder why that is.

I agree. Reviewers can only act on the information they have. No worries there, normally.

However, what I'm seeing, is a reviewer note asking that Super Fly check his cache.

The very same day, Super Fly checked his cache, reporting all was well.

Then, with no further communication, Nomex archived it a month later.

It does strike me as curious, and I assume once Nomex gets his weekend ammo can fix, it'll be resolved.

Unless there's more to this story that we don't know. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Looking at Super Fly's notes, does the negative attitude you seem to imply have a cloaking field I cannot penetrate? Are Super Fly's posts to this thread only invisible to me?

Do false accusations against the CO help resolve the problem?

I apologise for my inaccuracy in suggesting that the CO had posted here. Thank you for pointing this out in such a helpful and constructive way. I was, perhaps, in my pre-coffee Sunday morning way, confusing the tone of some of the posts in here with the tone of some of the CO's notes on the cache, since in their attitude to the reviewers, the two are not entirely different.

 

In particular, the CO's decision to post that

Nomex is still watching this cache 8:12 am eastern time was the last time he checked it out.
- quoting from the "Premium Member Only Cache" logging facility - seems to me to be about as provocative as calling someone a "rogue reviewer". Returning to my analogy, it's like standing outside your house and shouting abuse at officers as they drive past. It's your constituional right to do it, but it may not convince everyone that you're a model citizen.

 

Your jumping to conclusions and assumptions of what the CO's tone in his notes mean aren't helping, just as your first post wasn't. Maybe it looks provacative to you, but you don't know...and you don't know the CO to pass judgement either way.

 

I'm assuming this was a simple mistake and i should be straightened out. But, maybe I'm mistaken...it happens. To me, the fact that the CO is watching what is happening tells me he cares and is active...

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

In particular, the CO's decision to post that

Nomex is still watching this cache 8:12 am eastern time was the last time he checked it out.
- quoting from the "Premium Member Only Cache" logging facility - seems to me to be about as provocative as calling someone a "rogue reviewer". Returning to my analogy, it's like standing outside your house and shouting abuse at officers as they drive past. It's your constituional right to do it, but it may not convince everyone that you're a model citizen.

Sure if it is taken out of context it could appear that way.

The way it all can read.

 

Sunday October 4, Nomex "This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found." I can not find a NM log. I speculate a crybabies private communication.

Sunday October 4, Super Fly "Checked this cache today and everything is good."

Should have ended at that point.

 

Thursday November 5, Nomex "As there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. " Translation: You are a lier.

Thursday November 5, Super Fly "I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived." Valid argument

Followed by several protests from other cachers

Friday November 6 Super Fly "Nomex is still watching this cache 8:12 am eastern time was the last time he checked it out." Translation: Nomex, you can not claim you have not seen the protests your actions have generated.

 

Now lets look at Nomex's claim that there is no container.

How does Nomex know?

Has a finder gone to the location and verified it?

Did Super Fly tell somebody who told Nomex and if so where is Nomex's proof that they aren't lying?

Did Super Fly tell Nomex?

 

Going on the DNFrs with 1000+ finds?

How many where 1000+ before attempting the cache?

Numbers = squat

 

 

In so far as to the information we are privy too, Nomex looks to be the bad guy here, yet I still can't bring myself to say it is so.

What I can say is, so far judging by what we are privy to, Super Fly has done nothing untoward.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, after reading the posts on this topic the issues has been clarified very little. It does seem that since I started the thread I should make a few comments.

 

Some seem to take issue with my use of the term "Rogue Reviewer". At the time of the post I did not know that Nomex had been invited to look at Michigan Caches by the Michigan reviewers. DeRock later claified his post and its now clear that Nomex was invited. Others pointed out that GC reviewers are free to look at cache listings in states other than their own. The question becomes, why would they? If, as I was lead to believe, they had not been asked by the cachers in another state for help what would motivate them to start looking around other states for caches to take action on?

 

Nomex deactivated a cache in Michigan. The CO checked on the cache, verified that it was still there and reactivated the cache. Nomex then archives the cache for questionable reasons.

 

As I stated in the original post, this cache is very popular with many local cachers. Yet Nomex chose to archive it "to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements". Pretty lame reasons to archive a popular cache. While an out of state reviewer my have the ability to take action on caches, shouldn't they be familiar with the local caching communtity before they take such drastic actions?

 

So I believed, based on the local reviewers post, that Nomex had not been asked to look at caches in Michigan. Nomex archived a popular Michigan cache for weak reasons. Rogue Reviewer was a good choice of words for this thread.

 

I find myself wondering about Nomex's real motivation here. There is a lot we don't know and probably never will, but hopefully Groundspeak will do the right thing and reinstate the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

As was pointed out, someone probably complained and Nomex took action...not the popular action mind you, but action. I doubt there's an alterior motive here, but I do hope the problem is straightened out!

Share this post


Link to post
Thursday November 5, Nomex "As there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. " Translation: You are a lier.

 

Alternate explanation. He simply didn't notice the log. He may have clicked on the link the the cache from his original log, took a quick glance at the page and hit the archive button without noticing the log from the CO.

Reviewers look at hundreds of caches a week. Sometimes they are doing it late at night after a long, hard day at their real job. They miss the obvious, they make mistakes.

 

I find myself wondering about Nomex's real motivation here

 

Why does he need to have any motivation at all? It could be a simple mistake.

 

Bottom line, the cache is still there. Hitting the archive button doesn't blow the cache up and prevent it from ever returning. Once the dust has settled it will take one click of a button to unarchive it. Relax.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post
Thursday November 5, Nomex "As there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. " Translation: You are a lier.

 

Alternate explanation. He simply didn't notice the log. He may have clicked on the link the the cache from his original log, took a quick glance at the page and hit the archive button without noticing the log from the CO.

Reviewers look at hundreds of caches a week. Sometimes they are doing it late at night after a long, hard day at their real job. They miss the obvious, they make mistakes.

 

I find myself wondering about Nomex's real motivation here

 

Why does he need to have any motivation at all? It could be a simple mistake.

 

Bottom line, the cache is still there. Hitting the archive button doesn't blow the cache up and prevent it from ever returning. Once the dust has settled it will take one click of a button to unarchive it. Relax.

 

Wouldn't Nomex have received emails if he put the cache on watch? Wouldn't Nomex have seen follow-up posts since he was known to be watching the listing as noted by the CO?

 

It was likely a mistake, but I'm not sure he didn't see the notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Thursday November 5, Nomex "As there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. " Translation: You are a lier.

 

Alternate explanation. He simply didn't notice the log. He may have clicked on the link the the cache from his original log, took a quick glance at the page and hit the archive button without noticing the log from the CO.

Reviewers look at hundreds of caches a week. Sometimes they are doing it late at night after a long, hard day at their real job. They miss the obvious, they make mistakes.

 

I find myself wondering about Nomex's real motivation here

 

Why does he need to have any motivation at all? It could be a simple mistake.

 

Bottom line, the cache is still there. Hitting the archive button doesn't blow the cache up and prevent it from ever returning. Once the dust has settled it will take one click of a button to unarchive it. Relax.

 

Wouldn't Nomex have received emails if he put the cache on watch? Wouldn't Nomex have seen follow-up posts since he was known to be watching the listing as noted by the CO?

 

It was likely a mistake, but I'm not sure he didn't see the notes.

 

If he didn't check his reviewer e-mail account he wouldn't have seen the posts. It's not unheard of for a reviewer to not check his e-mail for a few days.

Share this post


Link to post

Why don't we give Nomex a chance to respond.

 

Right now everyone is just speculating.

 

As briansnat pointed out, nothing had been done that cannot be undone.

Share this post


Link to post

One of the local reviewers sent this response to an email that I sent to him.

 

Thank you for your e-mail and for your concern. I understand how you and others may perceive Nomex's actions and find them hard to understand.

 

Yes, help from Groundspeak regarding maintenance was asked for. Nomex volunteered his services to help us take care of some abandoned/problem cache listings. Please remember, all caches are meant to be found.

 

Not jumping to conclusions is a good approach. Being a member of your local friendly Reviewing team, I can personally tell you that the amount of grief and complaining about this one particular cache far surpasses all others to date. Now, I have no way of knowing what correspondence has taken place between the CO and Nomex and most likely never will. Groundspeak is currently looking into the matter and I am sure will have it resolved soon.

 

Will Nomex's decision stand? I don't know. That is up to Groundspeak. I'm sure we will all find out at the same time.

 

In the meantime, please remember that this is a sensitive situation and that with as much as you can see on the cache page, there is far more information that is not there. Not every thing is in black and white, especially on a cache page.

 

Please feel free to contact us at any time with questions or concerns...

 

Not much new there. DeRock had already cleared up the fact that they had invited Nomex to look at some caches. It is obvious that Nomex archived this cache without letting the local reviewers know that he was going to do it or his reasons for archiving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Not much new there.

Oh, I don't know about that.

 

"In the meantime, please remember that this is a sensitive situation and that with as much as you can see on the cache page, there is far more information that is not there. Not every thing is in black and white, especially on a cache page."

 

That line clearly explains that there is much more going on than is publicly known.

 

Until more information comes in, all the speculating and assuming that is being posted here is nothing more than that – worthless speculation and assumption. Until more facts are known, any theory is as good as any other.

 

Hopefully someone with authoritative knowledge will give us more info at some point.

 

Thanks for sharing that response, WC.

Share this post


Link to post

 

"In the meantime, please remember that this is a sensitive situation and that with as much as you can see on the cache page, there is far more information that is not there. Not every thing is in black and white, especially on a cache page."

 

That line clearly explains that there is much more going on than is publicly known.

Balogna. Then why not just give a quick overview instead of continually implying that there is some super-secret behind-door info. It's one geocache, it's not a matter of national security.

 

Returning to my analogy, it's like standing outside your house and shouting abuse at officers as they drive past. It's your constituional right to do it, but it may not convince everyone that you're a model citizen. (sTeamTraen)

But, in your "analogy", the cops would be powerless to do anything about it because of checks and balances in the system. Were one the cops to take action against you (wrongly and without explanation) he would be deemed 'rouge'.

Edited by iWikeCake

Share this post


Link to post

 

"In the meantime, please remember that this is a sensitive situation and that with as much as you can see on the cache page, there is far more information that is not there. Not every thing is in black and white, especially on a cache page."

 

That line clearly explains that there is much more going on than is publicly known.

Balogna. Then why not just give a quick overview instead of continually implying that there is some super-secret behind-door info. It's one geocache, it's not a matter of national security.

 

 

Assuming that it was not a mistake judging from that reply, it's a matter that is between the cache owner, the reviewer and Groundspeak. The local reviewer was kind enough answer the busybody but he was under no obligation to do so.

 

As you said, it's a geocache, not a matter of national security. Let the people with a dog in the fight work it out. Third parties have no business butting in. You have no need to know why it was archived. I have no need to know.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

Assuming that it was not a mistake judging from that reply, it's a matter that is between the cache owner, the reviewer and Groundspeak. The local reviewer was kind enough answer the busybody but he was under no obligation to do so.

 

As you said, it's a geocache, not a matter of national security. Let the people with a dog in the fight work it out. Third parties have no business butting in. You have no need to know why it was archived. I have no need to know.

I'm asking this for clarification purposes and not to be jerkish:

Was the above posted as a member or are you warning me as a moderator that I'm not at liberty to discuss with KBI his logic in this matter?

 

And why is asking for clarification about a ruling from a paying member being a "busybody"?

Share this post


Link to post

"In the meantime, please remember that this is a sensitive situation and that with as much as you can see on the cache page, there is far more information that is not there. Not every thing is in black and white, especially on a cache page."

 

That line clearly explains that there is much more going on than is publicly known.

Balogna. Then why not just give a quick overview instead of continually implying that there is some super-secret behind-door info. It's one geocache, it's not a matter of national security.

No it's not a matter of national security – as far as we know, anyway – but Groundspeak is a private company, and it's totally up to them how to handle it. If they want to tell us more, they'll tell us. If they decide to keep the details to themselves that’s their right as well. We as individual customers can either accept whatever happens, or leave.

 

As you point out, we customers have obvious reasons for wanting to understand the rules of this website. One presumes Groundspeak want to keep their customers happy; therefore one might reasonably assume that they will, at some point, explain the logic behind the reviewer's actions. But that is nothing more than speculation on my part, and as I have said before speculation is worthless until we hear more.

 

Until then, I like the way Briansnat put it: It’s really none of my business.

Share this post


Link to post

Until then, I like the way Briansnat put it: It’s really none of my business.

I don't like the way he put it. It seems unnecessarily heavy-handed. But as a non-member I can't argue that he was wrong - it is none of my business. If I were a paying member, however, I would think it would be part of my business to know that the services I'm paying for are being handled fairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Until then, I like the way Briansnat put it: It’s really none of my business.

I don't like the way he put it. It seems unnecessarily heavy-handed. But as a non-member I can't argue that he was wrong - it is none of my business. If I were a paying member, however, I would think it would be part of my business to know that the services I'm paying for are being handled fairly.

You make a good point.

 

Speaking as a long-time paying customer, then, let me assure you that I have never personally seen Groundspeak handle a cacher UNfairly, paying member or not. I can't speak for anyone else, but they do a pretty good job around here from where I sit.

 

Keep in mind this definition of justice: Justice happens when people get what they deserve.

 

I am comfortably certain that whatever is going on with this cache, it is being handled justly and fairly. If I never learn any more facts than I know now that will be fine with me, and I will have no reason to worry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
But, in your "analogy", the cops would be powerless to do anything about it because of checks and balances in the system. Were one the cops to take action against you (wrongly and without explanation) he would be deemed 'rouge'.

Well, analogies are always imperfect - in this case, Groundspeak is a private company, not the legal system. But from my experiences as a "client" of law enforcement - which extend to parking violations and a couple of speeding tickets - and comparing those experiences with those of my friends, it seems, entirely anecdotally, that the ones who cooperate with the officers tend to get more leniency than those who argue with them. Doubtless the Supreme Court would say that it shouldn't be that way, but there you go.

 

As others have noted, there may well be more going on here than we've been told. The cache owner can write to appeals@geocaching.com to ask for their cache to be reinstated. I wonder if they will?

Share this post


Link to post

My advise, such as it is:

 

Continue to work on the cache. Find it. Log it. Unless they lock the logs it will still count as a find.

 

You could also create a bookmark called "Archived Caches That Are Still There" and advertise it, pass it around.

 

Groundspeak is a listing site, not any sort of authority of whether a cache should exist. (Though it is pretty much a de facto authority.) Don't let this cramp your style. Being listed or not doesn't translate into whether the cache is actually in the wild or not. I know of several caches sitting in the wild, unlisted anywhere, waiting to be found.

Share this post


Link to post

Until then, I like the way Briansnat put it: It’s really none of my business.

I don't like the way he put it. It seems unnecessarily heavy-handed. But as a non-member I can't argue that he was wrong - it is none of my business. If I were a paying member, however, I would think it would be part of my business to know that the services I'm paying for are being handled fairly.

Nope. Paying members or otherwise have no "right" to know the private dealings and discussions between Groundspeak and a cache owner nor between Groundspeak and a volunteer reviewer.

 

Whatever happens and more specially why it happens is a private matter between them.

Share this post


Link to post

I know of several caches sitting in the wild, unlisted anywhere, waiting to be found.

Hmmm... curious. How could they be found if not listed?

Share this post


Link to post

This does bring up an interesting question...

 

Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache at all?

Share this post


Link to post

I know of several caches sitting in the wild, unlisted anywhere, waiting to be found.

Hmmm... curious. How could they be found if not listed?

 

October 20 by D.A.D.D. (2874 found)

We walk these trails often. This particular area has always been one my favorites to stop and survey the marshland to the south. It's a nice place for a quick rest too. Today the tamarack tress are a beautiful yellow-orange. I hiked from home east to west to the nearby Tribute to Tolkien cache today, and as I passed this area I thought "that would be a great place for a cache, and it looks like a hiding place". Imagine my shocked surprise when it actually was! Too funny. I've never accidently stumbled upon a cache before today. Picked up the two travel bugs within, and left a hotwheel car. TFTC and the fun. D.A.D.D. Pinckney (Hamburg Township).

 

not exactly unlisted but you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post

This does bring up an interesting question...

 

Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache at all?

That depends on how you qualify "impossible to find".

Share this post


Link to post

I heard through the grapevine that it was archived as a matter of national security. :blink: The cache is located near a suspected "dead drop" site, which is a prearranged hidden location used by spies for the clandestine exchange of packages, messages, payments, and communication devices. Every time a geocacher arrived, it sent a false alarm out to the FBI. This one is well known..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:mad:

 

..or it could have been that the owner posted his note that he checked up on it, only a few minutes after the reviewer's note making it seem unlikely that he actually did... AHA!!! So then the reviewer contacts Sarah Palin's secret reviewer's account on the other side of the country to do the dirty work.. :(:huh:

Share this post


Link to post

This does bring up an interesting question...

 

Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache at all?

That depends on how you qualify "impossible to find".

 

After dozens of very experienced cachers have made 27 attempts over the course of 2 years.

 

Now that we've established that... what about my question? Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache?

Share this post


Link to post

This does bring up an interesting question...

 

Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache at all?

That depends on how you qualify "impossible to find".

 

After dozens of very experienced cachers have made 27 attempts over the course of 2 years.

 

Now that we've established that... what about my question? Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache?

Now you have to qualify "very experienced cachers" and is that 27 between them or 27 each?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

×
×
  • Create New...