Rogue Reviewer?

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

I once turned a fake orange into a cache container; it took me about two hours of trial and error fabrication. I hung it in, yes, an ORANGE TREE. It really stuck out tho, as the tree was very old and just had crappy little oranges on it, very sparse. So, it wasn't hard to find at all, and cachers seemed to like it or at least the effort I put into it. It got muggled pretty quickly and that angered me. I did take a photo of it, tho, because I was proud of it. The fact that I had several hours of labor into it made it worse for me when it was muggled. I think if I had a year and a half invested into it, I would have shot myself. If Groundspeak told me to take it down, I would have saved it as a souvenir---maybe used it as a Christmas Ornament. So it goes.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...2e-5f69ac6226f7

[+geodarts]

Sorry, I thought I read the owner DID go through the appeals process? Are you meaning before or after Miss Jenn's note which also slapped his wrist while backing the liar claim?

 

The CO's appeal to Groundspeak wondered why the cache was archived, he focused on whether it was simply because there were so many dnfs. In response, he was told the matter would be investigated, but as far we know, Groundspeak then determined the cache was not there with no further communication There is nothing to indicate that Groundspeak contacted the owner and stated that they were concerned the cache was not there.

 

Perhaps the CO should have known that was the issue from the form letter archive note and provided more information from the start. But Groundspeak could have and should have told him that they were concerned that the cache was not there and asked for documentation. That seems like it would have been a fair and reasonable course of investigation - and one that would have avoided this thread one way or the other.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Erickson

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Ok. Sorry if he posted that he did go through the appeals process, I missed that.

 

Edit: Ok I went back and re-read the posts (86-88), and I guess when I read it the first time and even the second and third time, it didn't stand out that he went through the appeals process. The first line simply stated "here's the email I sent out to appeal". It wasn't clear to me that that meant that he filed an official appeal. But upon a re-reading, it seems that's what he meant.

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+JeremyR]

Is this off-topic post helpful?

It wasn't off topic, merely a pictorial description of my thought that the discussion has run it's course and interesting as it was this thread is just going around and around in circles, maintained by people who keep making the same points over and over again because they can't just agree to disagree.

[+oneeyesquare]

Whew!!! I ran out of steam on page 8.....

[+Moldslug]

Here is the second responce I got:

 

Super Fly,

 

Hello again.

 

After some investigation, Groundspeak does believe that there is no cache container to be found at all. This cache listing will remain archived and locked.

 

Obviously, your "fun" of listing a cache that is not really there at all is not the way the game of geocaching is supposed to go. Any further antics of this sort from you - under ANY username - will result in a long term loss of site privileges.

 

Regards,

-----

Jenn Seva

Groundspeak, Inc.

The Language of Location

 

http://www.Groundspeak.com

 

I've been watching the drama unfold and kept quiet, but now feel compelled to ask something simple.

I'm curious as to GS investigation techniques. It seems that Jenn would be incapable if checking it out personally so she had to of talked to someone else. Maybe the same person(s) that Nomex talked to. Possibly someone who also lives in the Grand Rapids area and would have provided a local accounting. Also the response SF got seems very accusatory. I don't see rogue action. In fact it seemed very deliberate.

Normally I would not get involved and really don't enjoy the overt dramatics of the boards here, but I am troubled by the character assassination that seems to have developed and been forwarded by some who should know better.

 

A group of us were planning a trip up to GR to try and cache crash the Jiendo site in hopes of that elusive FTF. This cache had started to take on mythical proportions. And yes I heard some of the grumblings that maybe it wasn't there because he refused to offer any hints. But then it was meant to be tough. It wasn't meant to be one of those 5 star difficulties where all you need is a Phillips screw driver for the lone reflector at hip level. It was meant to be something different, a truly unique and innovative hide that most cachers have never seen before. I personally like a good hunt, and really enjoy seeing unique containers. Although I don't necessarily see the value of a plain nano in the middle of 600 acres of woods or a numbers run of one LPC after another as that gets old also. But I still go after all those caches just for fun and I don't berate the hider for placing them. So I just wanted it noted that to archive this particular cache has taken away something special from the caching community. I don't believe it is GS's intention to stifle innovation and hard caches otherwise they would also be going after many of the other one's that have been mentioned here. Since that hasn't happened elsewhere, there might be some validity to his claims. I nope not, but realistically it seems very plausible.

 

I got to meet SuperFly when a group of us made the drive up to GR and we stopped at the ammo can. Very cool cache! Definitely not a hard find. He didn't come bounding out with welcoming gifts and jokes and a plate full of cookies. Not everyone is a rolly-polly ball of joy. Some people are straight forward and no-nonsense. He struck me as the latter type. And if he says the cache was there I believe him. I don't know the history of all the drama that goes on up there, and yes he has some caches that I have no hope of ever finding (I don't own a cell-phone so shock-codes are out) but when I e-mailed for help on a couple of his puzzles he replied within a couple days and was most helpful. Everyone I've met since I started caching has been pretty nice and has added to the fun of this hobby. But I'm sure like any group or community there will be those who for one reason or another, don't like someone else. It would be great if everyone got along and I try to treat everyone the same way I would like to be treated, but there are huge variety of personalities out there and some are bound to rub others a wrong way. After reading every post in this thread, I see a few from both ends of the spectrum have shown up here.

 

I too have experienced a situation where I believe another cacher went out and purposely stole one of my caches on what only could be termed a temper tantrum. At first I was angry but finally settled down and let it go. It's sad but I don't see an reason to dwell on it. I have not met him face to face but if ever I did, I wouldn't even bother to bring it up. Fortunately it was only a decon, I feel worse for the TB that was in there. I have even had a hand-made custom container go missing. It's the nature of the beast and I got over it.

 

So let's be realistic here, geo-caching is a very, silly game. Yes, a silly, silly game and I'm hooked and I love it! But I'm not going to get all bent out of shape over it (disappointed on occasion maybe!). I think all parties involved here bear some responsibility for poor judgment, inappropriate actions, and childish behavior. That includes anyone who may not have spoken up at all but have tried to hide and get others to do their dirty work. I can also understand where GS may have been forced to choose a side and in a simple business decision, they choose to support the side that would further the companies interests. Since this hobby is growing very quickly, the loss of a single cacher, although regrettable, is far less painful than replacing a reviewer. I do believe it could of been handled alot better. I hope GS would choose to be the voice of moderation, not a proxy.

 

With that said, anybody wanna just go cachin' !!!

[+Castle Mischief]

Is this off-topic post helpful?

It wasn't off topic, merely a pictorial description of my thought that the discussion has run it's course and interesting as it was this thread is just going around and around in circles, maintained by people who keep making the same points over and over again because they can't just agree to disagree.

 

Welcome to the internet(s).

 

...what no mention of a Rouge Reviewer...??

[Clan Riffster]

But they did provide information on the cache page with a note indicating that the cache owner could go through the appeal process if they cache owner wished. At this point, the information would have been exchanged between the cache owner and Groundspeak.

 

It seems that the cache owner chose not to avail himself of that process.

Unless I misread something, there was no reference of the appeals process mentioned in either the disabled cache note or the archive cache note. The only sentence that even remotely suggests further contact was from Nomex, when he disabled the cache, saying: "Don't hesitate to email me via the link on my Profile if you have any questions." Super Fly was given fairly reasonable and simple directions to follow. He didn't need any questions answered, as he had no idea that his cache was going to be archived regardless of what steps he took.

 

So the question remains: what is a cacher supposed to do upon getting one of these reviewer notes?

Barring any psychic powers, if I received a note from a reviewer asking me to check my cache, I would... wait for it... Check My Cache! It woudn't occur to me, in this game based on faith and good will, to translate "Please Check Your Cache" into "If You Don't Send Proof Of Your Cache's Existence, We're Nuking That Sucker". I assume that Nomex is fully able to communicate his wishes. If he wanted proof, he should've asked for proof.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+allenite]

With that said, anybody wanna just go cachin' !!!

 

Sure Moldslug, I'll go caching. Your area or mine.

[+brslk]

Just throwing this out there... But, if the cache that superfly took so long to manufacture was destroyed without photos being taken of it and it was soo unique to its location, might it be possible to take a picture(s) of the exact location it was placed in and post that?

 

Not trying to cast doubt on him but hoping this might renew mine and others belief in his original story.

 

For the record, I am still not sure what basis GS had for calling him a liar and will likely never know.

 

Bruce.

Edited November 13, 2009 by brslk

[+the_bell_dingers]

Who wants pie?

[+brslk]

Who wants pie?

 

omnomnomnomom! what kinda pie? is this a trick? I've been fooled by this before

[knowschad]

I don't think it is one bit funny to attempt to derail this serious thread with jokes about pie. There are plenty of other threads to play with here if you wish to, but this is not one of them. Some of us are serious here.

[+brslk]

I don't think it is one bit funny to attempt to derail this serious thread with jokes about pie. There are plenty of other threads to play with here if you wish to, but this is not one of them. Some of us are serious here.

 

Sorry. I am pretty sure this thread has been derailed a long time ago. I honestly think the issue here will never be dealt with. I wish it would be but a little humour is not going to derail it.

 

If I am wrong, let me know.

[+bittsen]

I don't think it is one bit funny to attempt to derail this serious thread with jokes about pie. There are plenty of other threads to play with here if you wish to, but this is not one of them. Some of us are serious here.

 

Sorry. I am pretty sure this thread has been derailed a long time ago. I honestly think the issue here will never be dealt with. I wish it would be but a little humour is not going to derail it.

 

If I am wrong, let me know.

 

I believe you are wrong.

[+brslk]

I don't think it is one bit funny to attempt to derail this serious thread with jokes about pie. There are plenty of other threads to play with here if you wish to, but this is not one of them. Some of us are serious here.

 

Sorry. I am pretty sure this thread has been derailed a long time ago. I honestly think the issue here will never be dealt with. I wish it would be but a little humour is not going to derail it.

 

If I am wrong, let me know.

 

I believe you are wrong.

 

Then I apologize.

 

My mind is never closed. I consider every opinion I receive and take all into consideration.

[+bshwckr]

Just throwing this out there... But, if the cache that superfly took so long to manufacture was destroyed without photos being taken of it and it was soo unique to its location, might it be possible to take a picture(s) of the exact location it was placed in and post that?

 

Not trying to cast doubt on him but hoping this might renew mine and others belief in his original story.

 

For the record, I am still not sure what basis GS had for calling him a liar and will likely never know.

 

Bruce.

 

Might still be some poster putty stuck to the brickwork.

[+brslk]

Just throwing this out there... But, if the cache that superfly took so long to manufacture was destroyed without photos being taken of it and it was soo unique to its location, might it be possible to take a picture(s) of the exact location it was placed in and post that?

 

Not trying to cast doubt on him but hoping this might renew mine and others belief in his original story.

 

For the record, I am still not sure what basis GS had for calling him a liar and will likely never know.

 

Bruce.

 

Might still be some poster putty stuck to the brickwork.

 

No... there might be an obviously vacant place where the cache may have been.... if it was a simple brick looking thing stuck with putty... it wouldn't have taken anyone a year and a half to make.

[+bshwckr]

Just throwing this out there... But, if the cache that superfly took so long to manufacture was destroyed without photos being taken of it and it was soo unique to its location, might it be possible to take a picture(s) of the exact location it was placed in and post that?

 

Not trying to cast doubt on him but hoping this might renew mine and others belief in his original story.

 

For the record, I am still not sure what basis GS had for calling him a liar and will likely never know.

 

Bruce.

 

Might still be some poster putty stuck to the brickwork.

 

No... there might be an obviously vacant place where the cache may have been.... if it was a simple brick looking thing stuck with putty... it wouldn't have taken anyone a year and a half to make.

 

According to the CO, it WAS attached with poster putty.

Quote from post #89 (bolded by me) It was stuck to the existing brick with poster putty and coated with stonecreations paint.

 

As the cache was in place for 2 years, there may be some other sign that this particular brick was covered up. I am a bit too far away from Grand Rapids at the moment to go and look myself otherwise I would. I am still hopeful of proof that the cache existed. Having said that, the existence of the cache is not the main issue here.

[Dinoprophet]

Just throwing this out there... But, if the cache that superfly took so long to manufacture was destroyed without photos being taken of it and it was soo unique to its location, might it be possible to take a picture(s) of the exact location it was placed in and post that?

 

Not trying to cast doubt on him but hoping this might renew mine and others belief in his original story.

 

For the record, I am still not sure what basis GS had for calling him a liar and will likely never know.

 

Bruce.

 

Might still be some poster putty stuck to the brickwork.

 

No... there might be an obviously vacant place where the cache may have been.... if it was a simple brick looking thing stuck with putty... it wouldn't have taken anyone a year and a half to make.

 

According to the CO, it WAS attached with poster putty.

Quote from post #89 (bolded by me) It was stuck to the existing brick with poster putty and coated with stonecreations paint.

 

As the cache was in place for 2 years, there may be some other sign that this particular brick was covered up. I am a bit too far away from Grand Rapids at the moment to go and look myself otherwise I would. I am still hopeful of proof that the cache existed. Having said that, the existence of the cache is not the main issue here.

That's right, at least in my mind. Nobody but Super Fly will ever know for sure whether this cache existed. There is no further point in discussing that.

 

To me, this thread is now about what Groundspeak's policies are when a cache remains unfound for a long period.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+MickEMT]

Just throwing this out there... But, if the cache that superfly took so long to manufacture was destroyed without photos being taken of it and it was soo unique to its location, might it be possible to take a picture(s) of the exact location it was placed in and post that?

 

Not trying to cast doubt on him but hoping this might renew mine and others belief in his original story.

 

For the record, I am still not sure what basis GS had for calling him a liar and will likely never know.

 

Bruce.

 

Might still be some poster putty stuck to the brickwork.

 

No... there might be an obviously vacant place where the cache may have been.... if it was a simple brick looking thing stuck with putty... it wouldn't have taken anyone a year and a half to make.

 

Well.......... maybe. I remember the first time I tried creating amold to cast some stuff for a model RR layout. Took me a while to get it right and I have plenty of time at work to fuss around with such stuff. If I was trying outside of work hours, I could see it taking me at least a year to get it done.

 

Looking at what has happened, I think we can take a couple lessons from this issue.

 

1. If there is doubt about a cache's existence, perhaps GC should put a policy in place that the reviewer ask for a photo of the container. Just a simple note to the cache page along the lines of "There have been questions raised about the existence of this cache. Seeing as it has not been found in -- months and no one has logged a find, could you please email a photo of the cache to Joethereviewer@whatever.com within 2 weeks"

2. Perhaps the reviewers should discuss the stock notes that are in use and see if some of them could be taken badly. In this particular case, the note that was used, does seem to question the CO's honesty.

3. We as cache owners should consider offering the reviewers proof when we set out a very challenging cache.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Just throwing this out there... But, if the cache that superfly took so long to manufacture was destroyed without photos being taken of it and it was soo unique to its location, might it be possible to take a picture(s) of the exact location it was placed in and post that?

 

Not trying to cast doubt on him but hoping this might renew mine and others belief in his original story.

 

For the record, I am still not sure what basis GS had for calling him a liar and will likely never know.

 

Bruce.

 

Might still be some poster putty stuck to the brickwork.

 

No... there might be an obviously vacant place where the cache may have been.... if it was a simple brick looking thing stuck with putty... it wouldn't have taken anyone a year and a half to make.

 

Well.......... maybe. I remember the first time I tried creating amold to cast some stuff for a model RR layout. Took me a while to get it right and I have plenty of time at work to fuss around with such stuff. If I was trying outside of work hours, I could see it taking me at least a year to get it done.

 

Looking at what has happened, I think we can take a couple lessons from this issue.

 

1. If there is doubt about a cache's existence, perhaps GC should put a policy in place that the reviewer ask for a photo of the container. Just a simple note to the cache page along the lines of "There have been questions raised about the existence of this cache. Seeing as it has not been found in -- months and no one has logged a find, could you please email a photo of the cache to Joethereviewer@whatever.com within 2 weeks"

2. Perhaps the reviewers should discuss the stock notes that are in use and see if some of them could be taken badly. In this particular case, the note that was used, does seem to question the CO's honesty.

3. We as cache owners should consider offering the reviewers proof when we set out a very challenging cache.

 

1) I doubt a picture would have made a difference here. If the PTB already had doubt (which, obviously they did), do you think a picture which could easily be photoshopped would have helped? I could be mistaken.

 

2) This was a canned message with an added word which was obviously purposely added by Nomex. The canned messages seem fairly friendly, this was purposely stated and calls the owner a liar. Nomex had to know he was doing this, this wasn't an accident.

 

3) Unless we're now going to be expected to submit a photo of every cache we submit for publication, I disagree. Because we're more creative (something most cachers WANT), we need to prove we're telling the truth? That's just calling us a liar before the fact IMHO.

 

What we need is better communication between reviewers and owners if there is a question. If a reviewer requires proof, state this and not just ask the owner to "check on it". We need reviewers to do a better job of verifying a cache exists IF there is question and we certainly need the review process to not just take the word of the reviewers. If there is enough doubt that you can call the owner a liar, you should be able to BACK YOUR CLAIM! We owners need to know we're trusted and not going to be called liars and have our hides archived if we're too creative (again, what most cachers want).

 

I have no idea whether the cache ever existed, I don't believe Nomex or Miss Jenn do either. I could be wrong, but I think they went on an assumption which came about due to reports and the multiple DNFs. I think verifying this would have been the proper course of action, I don't see ANYWHERE that this was done or even attempted. While I don't think this was done with intentional malice and both Nomex and Miss Jenn took the action they thought was needed, I think it was handled improperly IMHO...

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think it is one bit funny to attempt to derail this serious thread with jokes about pie. There are plenty of other threads to play with here if you wish to, but this is not one of them. Some of us are serious here.

 

Sorry. I am pretty sure this thread has been derailed a long time ago. I honestly think the issue here will never be dealt with. I wish it would be but a little humour is not going to derail it.

 

If I am wrong, let me know.

 

I believe you are wrong.

 

Then I apologize.

 

My mind is never closed. I consider every opinion I receive and take all into consideration.

 

brslk, these cachers are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their minds. All minds, brslk, whether they be men's or children's, are important. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

 

Yes, brslk, the cache existed. It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that it abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no jiendo. It would be as dreary as if there were no brslk's. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

 

Not believe in jiendo! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the cache to find it, but even if they did not ever find it, what would that prove? Nobody saw the cache, but that is no sign that there was no jiendo. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

 

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernatural beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, brslk, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

 

No Jiendo! Thank God! It lives, and it lives forever. A thousand years from now, brslk, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, this thread will continue to make glad the heart of geocachers.

[Clan Riffster]

Francis is rolling over in her grave...

Edited November 13, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+mertat]

I don't think it is one bit funny to attempt to derail this serious thread with jokes about pie. There are plenty of other threads to play with here if you wish to, but this is not one of them. Some of us are serious here.

 

Sorry. I am pretty sure this thread has been derailed a long time ago. I honestly think the issue here will never be dealt with. I wish it would be but a little humour is not going to derail it.

 

If I am wrong, let me know.

 

I believe you are wrong.

 

Then I apologize.

 

My mind is never closed. I consider every opinion I receive and take all into consideration.

 

brslk, these cachers are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their minds. All minds, brslk, whether they be men's or children's, are important. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

 

Yes, brslk, the cache existed. It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that it abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no jiendo. It would be as dreary as if there were no brslk's. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

 

Not believe in jiendo! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the cache to find it, but even if they did not ever find it, what would that prove? Nobody saw the cache, but that is no sign that there was no jiendo. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

 

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernatural beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, brslk, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

 

No Jiendo! Thank God! It lives, and it lives forever. A thousand years from now, brslk, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, this thread will continue to make glad the heart of geocachers.

4wheelin_fool, I ALWAYS enjoy reading your posts! Keep up the good work.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

 

Why would the local review team single you out? They are geocachers too. I'm sure they enjoy great caches regardless of who placed them.

 

There are probably thousands of individual cache owners in your state, some who place easy caches and some who place difficult ones, yet the review team chose you out of all those cache owners to pick on because they don't like YOUR puzzles and hides?

 

I'm starting to sense a bit of a persecution complex here.

 

Now I know there is a persecution complex here. Keep posting. In the beginning I was sympathetic with your situation and thought a mistake might have been made, but the more you've posted, the more I'm convinced that Nomex and Groundspeak were right on the money.

 

I cannot take sides in the original dispute other than absent proof, why not take the CO's word that he had placed a cache? We had one most difficult cache down here that several people swore that it didn't exist and there were dozens of DNFs. Thank goodness, it wasn't archived because some cachers were p_____ off!

Now what bothers me most it the one sidedness of TPTB.

Here is a quote from the above post: "Why would the local review team single you out?" This seems to imply that all reviewers are always above board and would never demonstrate any sort of bias toward an individual. You got to be kidding! Believe it or not, reviewers are human and with that comes all of the human weaknesses.

I know of several cases where reviewers have sided with their friends against other cachers. Yes, they did it without having all the facts and simply went with their friends. This behavior has gone as far as leading up to and including bans for the "offending" geocachers.

Now, maybe we can conclude mistakes have been made in the past and just maybe one has been made here! Where is "giving the CO the benefit of the doubt?" Reviewers, moderators and the rest of us geocaches have clay feet and have all fragilities that come with being human!

Edited November 13, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+uxorious]

2) This was a canned message with an added word which was obviously purposely added by Nomex. The canned messages seem fairly friendly, this was purposely stated and calls the owner a liar. Nomex had to know he was doing this, this wasn't an accident.

 

This sums it up for me. It is not whether SF was lying, my issue is with Nomex calling him a liar in a public format.

 

The canned message used really didn't fit the reason for archival. However, even that would not bother me. What does bother me is the message was used AFTER SF had said the cache was there, indicating that he was lying. Then to cap it off, Nomex added the word "years". Indicating a deliberate indication he thought SF was lying.

 

My respect toward the reviewers and Ground speak has taken a hit on this one. If they cannot tell us why they felt the CO was lying, they owe him a public apology. Not necessarily for calling him a liar, but for doing so in a public way that cannot be defended.

 

IMHO.

[Mushtang]

My respect toward the reviewers and Ground speak has taken a hit on this one. If they cannot tell us why they felt the CO was lying, they owe him a public apology.

I see a few possibilities here:

 

1) He wasn't lying and the cache was really there. - Groundspeak probably wouldn't have said and done the things they've done. They don't archive caches that haven't been found in years on a regular basis, right? Anyone heard of this being done before? There are several examples of long time unfound caches given in this thread and GS hasn't archived those, so they apparently don't have a new policy in effect. There was plenty of time for the cache owner to give GS a picture, or somehow prove the cache was in place before this train wreck got to the forums. I'm just curious why he didn't?

 

2) He was totally lying, but GS has no proof. - If for some reason they've been given reason to suspect that the cache was gone but didn't know for sure, it seems like they'd have the local reviewer ask for verification (A picture, or description in a reviewer note, or something). This isn't what happened as far as I know.

 

3) He was totally lying and GS knew he was. - If he was lying about it and was just hiding a cache for the sole purpose of collecting as many DNFs as possible, and somehow GS found out about it (I wouldn't begin to know how they would), I'd hope that they'd definitely archive it asap. Would there be any benefit to GS to comment publically about how they found out and show what a tool the cache owner was? It doesn't seem like something they'd do either. Any public angst was brought on by the hider himself at this point.

 

I don't know which of these is the truth, but one of them seems much more likely to me than the others.

[+Nozzletime]

My respect toward the reviewers and Ground speak has taken a hit on this one. If they cannot tell us why they felt the CO was lying, they owe him a public apology.

I see a few possibilities here:

 

1) He wasn't lying and the cache was really there. - Groundspeak probably wouldn't have said and done the things they've done. They don't archive caches that haven't been found in years on a regular basis, right? Anyone heard of this being done before? There are several examples of long time unfound caches given in this thread and GS hasn't archived those, so they apparently don't have a new policy in effect. There was plenty of time for the cache owner to give GS a picture, or somehow prove the cache was in place before this train wreck got to the forums. I'm just curious why he didn't?

 

2) He was totally lying, but GS has no proof. - If for some reason they've been given reason to suspect that the cache was gone but didn't know for sure, it seems like they'd have the local reviewer ask for verification (A picture, or description in a reviewer note, or something). This isn't what happened as far as I know.

 

3) He was totally lying and GS knew he was. - If he was lying about it and was just hiding a cache for the sole purpose of collecting as many DNFs as possible, and somehow GS found out about it (I wouldn't begin to know how they would), I'd hope that they'd definitely archive it asap. Would there be any benefit to GS to comment publically about how they found out and show what a tool the cache owner was? It doesn't seem like something they'd do either. Any public angst was brought on by the hider himself at this point.

 

I don't know which of these is the truth, but one of them seems much more likely to me than the others.

 

1) Groundspeak owes him an apology

2) Groundpseak owes him an apology

3) Groundpseak owes him an apology, unless they can explain how they determined he is a liar.

 

I would like to see someone from Groundspeak either defend their actions or apologize for them.

[+uxorious]

Any public angst was brought on by the hider himself at this point.

 

Not sure why you feel any public angst was brought on by SF. He was not the one who started this thread, and only came on here to defend himself.

 

Nomex was the one who indicated SF was a liar. He did so in a public place in which SF cannot defend himself.

 

Like I said, whether he was a liar or not, if Nomex called him one in a public place, Nomex owes him an explanation, or an apology. (personally I wouldn't care if Nomex apologize for calling him a liar, or just that he did so in public.)

 

What Nomex did was deliberate, and I always thought reviewers and ground speak was above that.

[Mushtang]

Any public angst was brought on by the hider himself at this point.

Not sure why you feel any public angst was brought on by SF. He was not the one who started this thread, and only came on here to defend himself.

 

Nomex was the one who indicated SF was a liar. He did so in a public place in which SF cannot defend himself.

Take that once sentence out of context and it really changes what I meant, doesn't it?

 

That was part of my number 3 option, IF he was lying about the cache being there from the start and IF GS found out he was lying, then in my opinion he brought it on himself by publishing a cache page for a cache he never placed. And that's an IF - I don't know the details either. The folks that know the details aren't talking, and I really don't think that they have to if they don't want to.

[Mushtang]

1) Groundspeak owes him an apology

2) Groundpseak owes him an apology

3) Groundpseak owes him an apology, unless they can explain how they determined he is a liar.

 

I would like to see someone from Groundspeak either defend their actions or apologize for them.

It seems likely that the truth is either 1) or 3). Option 2) doesn't seem likely at all.

 

If it's 1), then I agree, an apology is owed.

 

If it's 3), then I disagree, SF should just be thankful he's still allowed to play the game on this website and wasn't banned.

 

I don't see how they owe any explanation to the forum crowd if this was something SF did to himself. If someone lies about something and is called a liar, what's to apologize for?

[+bittsen]

My respect toward the reviewers and Ground speak has taken a hit on this one. If they cannot tell us why they felt the CO was lying, they owe him a public apology.

I see a few possibilities here:

 

1) He wasn't lying and the cache was really there. - Groundspeak probably wouldn't have said and done the things they've done. They don't archive caches that haven't been found in years on a regular basis, right? Anyone heard of this being done before? There are several examples of long time unfound caches given in this thread and GS hasn't archived those, so they apparently don't have a new policy in effect. There was plenty of time for the cache owner to give GS a picture, or somehow prove the cache was in place before this train wreck got to the forums. I'm just curious why he didn't?

 

2) He was totally lying, but GS has no proof. - If for some reason they've been given reason to suspect that the cache was gone but didn't know for sure, it seems like they'd have the local reviewer ask for verification (A picture, or description in a reviewer note, or something). This isn't what happened as far as I know.

 

3) He was totally lying and GS knew he was. - If he was lying about it and was just hiding a cache for the sole purpose of collecting as many DNFs as possible, and somehow GS found out about it (I wouldn't begin to know how they would), I'd hope that they'd definitely archive it asap. Would there be any benefit to GS to comment publically about how they found out and show what a tool the cache owner was? It doesn't seem like something they'd do either. Any public angst was brought on by the hider himself at this point.

 

I don't know which of these is the truth, but one of them seems much more likely to me than the others.

 

1) Groundspeak owes him an apology

2) Groundpseak owes him an apology

3) Groundpseak owes him an apology, unless they can explain how they determined he is a liar.

 

I would like to see someone from Groundspeak either defend their actions or apologize for them.

 

+5

[CoyoteRed]

I honestly think the issue here will never be dealt with.

I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak thinks the issue has been dealt with and is over. I'm pretty sure you will not see public accounting from Groundspeak of the issue. From my experience here, that's just "how they roll."

[+bittsen]

I honestly think the issue here will never be dealt with.

I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak thinks the issue has been dealt with and is over. I'm pretty sure you will not see public accounting from Groundspeak of the issue. From my experience here, that's just "how they roll."

 

It's unfortunate and likely true.

 

If it had happened to me and GS called me a liar (assuming I wasn't lying), especially publicly, I wouldn't rest until the comment was retracted.

[+helix149]

I honestly think the issue here will never be dealt with.

I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak thinks the issue has been dealt with and is over. I'm pretty sure you will not see public accounting from Groundspeak of the issue. From my experience here, that's just "how they roll."

 

While I am fairly new here I feel it necessary to say a few things so hopefully GS can consider them while sitting on their decision to not further explain themselves. Being new but definitely loving the game already following this thread has made me question a few things:

 

1 while I was leaning towards paying for a premium membership I am now on the fence as to whether I want to fund a site and staff that it seems to me is not being accountable to the paying members of this site. Nor are they being transparent. If they truly did nothing wrong why hide what transpired and for that matter if one or more of them crossed a moral line it wouldn't be a big deal as far as I am concerned so long as they admitted any fault they had and did what they could reasonably to make it right.

 

2 I have several cache ideas and locations in mind and while what transpired with this cache does not appear to be the norm due to it happening and GS not simply asking for more proof (which it does not appear they ever did but we dont know because they will not disclose the emails) I am strongly considering using another site for my cache listings that is more user moderated instead of moderated from behind closed doors. At least then if it becomes necessary for me to remove a cache it is because the local community didn't like it and would rather have it removed. This does not seem to be the case here as many were still actively seeking or planning on actively seeking the cash when it was archived.

 

3 I also don't like the idea of GS not participating in a better resolution to this issue when splinterheads is being released this weekend and may attract many more new cachers and they will see this unresolved issue that GS is refusing to even explain itself in at or near the top of the forums. How many people will skim over the posts and get turned off to the game before even getting started. It seems to be bad business to me.

[+wimseyguy]

1. PM's do more than fund the site. They give you access to additional features that can enhance your caching. You don't have to like what TPTB do or stand for to enjoy the fee based features. But you can use whatever factors you like in your decision making. Personally I couldn't see caching without PQ's at this stage in my caching career. It would take something far more heinous that this incident for me to quit being a PM.

 

2. Don't let this isolated incident slow your creative process. Dozens of creative caches and hundreds if not thousands of routine ones have been placed and published while this discussion has taken place. It won't change a thing about the everyday workings of the website and thousands of cachers who never bother to peek at the forums and know this took place.

 

3. Splinterheads is an independant film and Groundspeak has nothing at stake there except for more exposure from indie film fans who haven't heard of geocaching. Keep multiplying the percentages (make up whatever ones you like) and I suspect you are talking about a very small handful of people who like indie films-> will see Splinterheads-> think caching is great fun and want to start right away-> check out the forums-> and are so turned off by this one thread among hundreds that they change their mind about geocaching completely.

There is already a small enough percentage of active cachers who ever look in here as it is.

 

Meanwhile back OT-I agree with Mushtang. There are three possibilities here. It's very doubtful that the truth will ever be revealed in the forums.

This saga is almost toast.

[+Harry Dolphin]

True. I doubt that we will ever know what happened here. Which is unfortunate.

But some clarifiacation is needed here!

Nomex disabled it with this note (quoted in part):

This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found. The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it or archive it, after picking up any geo-litter. See the maintenance section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines: (visit link)

The cited guidelines do not mention maintenance being necessary when a cache has not been found.

Where is this mentioned in the guidelines??? How often is a maintenance visit required on a cache that has not been found??? This is of concern to many geocachers!

Albeit, the reason for archiving the cache is not the same.

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.

This is lacking in consistancy and continuity. We need some clarification on the guidelines! A cache that has not been found is presumed never to have been placed??? What is the time frame? Does this mean that difficult caches are no longer permitted. Caches with no finds will be archived within a certain time frame?

We need an explanation here, of what is going on!

[Dinoprophet]

True. I doubt that we will ever know what happened here. Which is unfortunate.

But some clarifiacation is needed here!

Nomex disabled it with this note (quoted in part):

This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found. The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it or archive it, after picking up any geo-litter. See the maintenance section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines: (visit link)

The cited guidelines do not mention maintenance being necessary when a cache has not been found.

Where is this mentioned in the guidelines??? How often is a maintenance visit required on a cache that has not been found??? This is of concern to many geocachers!

Albeit, the reason for archiving the cache is not the same.

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.

This is lacking in consistancy and continuity. We need some clarification on the guidelines! A cache that has not been found is presumed never to have been placed??? What is the time frame? Does this mean that difficult caches are no longer permitted. Caches with no finds will be archived within a certain time frame?

We need an explanation here, of what is going on!

Again I agree with this. Lying and apologies and nonexistent caches are no longer relevant. How we can expect GS to deal with very-difficult-to-find caches is.

[+briansnat]

I don't think it is one bit funny to attempt to derail this serious thread with jokes about pie. There are plenty of other threads to play with here if you wish to, but this is not one of them. Some of us are serious here.

 

Sorry. I am pretty sure this thread has been derailed a long time ago. I honestly think the issue here will never be dealt with. I wish it would be but a little humour is not going to derail it.

 

If I am wrong, let me know.

 

I believe you are wrong.

 

Then I apologize.

 

My mind is never closed. I consider every opinion I receive and take all into consideration.

 

brslk, these cachers are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their minds. All minds, brslk, whether they be men's or children's, are important. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

 

Yes, brslk, the cache existed. It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that it abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no jiendo. It would be as dreary as if there were no brslk's. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

 

Not believe in jiendo! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the cache to find it, but even if they did not ever find it, what would that prove? Nobody saw the cache, but that is no sign that there was no jiendo. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

 

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernatural beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, brslk, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

 

No Jiendo! Thank God! It lives, and it lives forever. A thousand years from now, brslk, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, this thread will continue to make glad the heart of geocachers.

 

Thanks for the chuckle!

[+briansnat]

This is lacking in consistancy and continuity. We need some clarification on the guidelines! A cache that has not been found is presumed never to have been placed??? What is the time frame? Does this mean that difficult caches are no longer permitted. Caches with no finds will be archived within a certain time frame?

We need an explanation here, of what is going on!

Again I agree with this. Lying and apologies and nonexistent caches are no longer relevant. How we can expect GS to deal with very-difficult-to-find caches is.

 

I didn't see any change to the guidelines prohibiting very difficult to find caches, nor have I seen a rash of unfound caches being archived. There is no evidence that this is anything other than a unique situation. Owners of difficult to find caches can rest easy.

Edited November 14, 2009 by briansnat

[Clan Riffster]

It seems likely that the truth is either 1) or 3). Option 2) doesn't seem likely at all.

My guess is it's either 1 or 2. Judging by the distance between the cache, Nomex's area of operation and Groundspeak HQ, I would find it difficult to conceive of any means by which TPTB could establish, as fact, that there was no cache there. Even if Nomex and/or Miss Jenn did hop the corporate jet to ground zero, the only thing they would have found would be the spot their particular GPSrs zeroed out at. If they arrived and DNFed, is that proof that the whole thing was a fraud? If that's the standard of proof required, there would be no need to send for out of town help. The locals could simply DNF it, and in their hubris, assume the cache never existed.

 

Nomex said he was going to check back on the listing, and since we've had several folks in here declare that he is a person of good moral character, I can only assume that he did check the listing. At that point, he would've seen that the cache owner complied with his request, meeting any possible guidelines requirements. By choosing such an inflammatory cut/paste archival note, and editing it for extra emphasis, he was making a personal and public statement regarding the character of the cache owner.

 

We don't know what happened behind closed doors, as only one person in this debacle has offered their side of the story. Groundspeak continues to hide behind a veil of privacy concerns, even though Super Fly waived those concerns in this very thread.

 

Since an agent of Groundspeak elected to make a personal and public defamation of someone who supports them financially, I think the onus of proof rests on their shoulders, not Super Fly's.

[+tozainamboku]

The cited guidelines do not mention maintenance being necessary when a cache has not been found.

Where is this mentioned in the guidelines??? How often is a maintenance visit required on a cache that has not been found??? This is of concern to many geocachers!

There is certainly an implication that if many people DNF your cache the reviewer may assume it is missing and ask that you do a maintenance visit. The majority of caches that are archived by reviewers seems to be for this reason. A cache owner doesn't check on the cache after several DNFs in a row or doesn't respond to a needs maintenance request. In general the reviewer will post a warning giving one last chance and if the cache owner doesn't do maintenance in what ever period the review felt was reasonable the cache gets archived. The interesting thing in this cache is that the owner immediately claimed to do maintenance and checking of the cache. Perhaps, in some instances, one can be too quick in checking on a cache. A reviewer may not believe you if you post that you did maintenance five minutes after the reviewer gave a warning. We don't know exactly how long after Nomex disabled the cache SF reenabled it. That may be some of the additional evidence that GS used in deciding to uphold the archiving of the cache. If there is trust between a cache owner and the reviewer a cache can probably remained unfound forever. Once the trust it not there, the level of proof needed to keep an unfound cache from being archived goes up. But ultimately a cache owner could alway take a reviewer to the cache and show them it is there.

 

Most cachers feel that caches are meant to be found. A hide can be challenging but it shouldn't be near impossible. The main reason for camouflage should be to keep the cache from being muggled. A few cacher owners on the other hand have decided to make it a game between the hiders and finders and try to make a cache that can't be found. There isn't a guideline yet preventing this, but it may be that reviewers have a prejudice against such kinds of hides. Any cache with a significant number of DNFs that has never been found might look suspicious. If you are going to play that game be warned that you may need to provide proof your cache is really there.

 

While I am fairly new here I feel it necessary to say a few things so hopefully GS can consider them while sitting on their decision to not further explain themselves. Being new but definitely loving the game already following this thread has made me question a few things:

 

1 while I was leaning towards paying for a premium membership I am now on the fence as to whether I want to fund a site and staff that it seems to me is not being accountable to the paying members of this site. Nor are they being transparent. If they truly did nothing wrong why hide what transpired and for that matter if one or more of them crossed a moral line it wouldn't be a big deal as far as I am concerned so long as they admitted any fault they had and did what they could reasonably to make it right.

 

2 I have several cache ideas and locations in mind and while what transpired with this cache does not appear to be the norm due to it happening and GS not simply asking for more proof (which it does not appear they ever did but we dont know because they will not disclose the emails) I am strongly considering using another site for my cache listings that is more user moderated instead of moderated from behind closed doors. At least then if it becomes necessary for me to remove a cache it is because the local community didn't like it and would rather have it removed. This does not seem to be the case here as many were still actively seeking or planning on actively seeking the cash when it was archived.

 

3 I also don't like the idea of GS not participating in a better resolution to this issue when splinterheads is being released this weekend and may attract many more new cachers and they will see this unresolved issue that GS is refusing to even explain itself in at or near the top of the forums. How many people will skim over the posts and get turned off to the game before even getting started. It seems to be bad business to me.

 

1 premium membership has nothing to do with it. The reviewers are asked to review and occasionally archive caches which are not in compliance with guidelines. Even if it were an unwritten guideline (but it is written), if there isn't a cache to find that should be reason enough to archive a listing. What we don't know is the exact way a reviewer determines there isn't a cache to find. I believe they act as judges and review the evidence, by the those who logged DNF or who may have complained privately about the cache, against the evidence the cache owner presents that the cache is there. If the reviewer comes to the conclusion that there is no cache to find they can archive the cache. In this cache is seems that Nomex gave the cache owner one last chance to correct the situation by ensuring there was a cache to find. Since there might have been a cache to find all along, perhaps the canned note that was used could have been written better to give the cache owner a better idea of what was being asked.

 

2 if you place cache just be sure you have read an understood the guidelines. Then if a reviewer later says there is a problem you can write them back to ask what the problem is since you know of no problem. For the most part Groundspeak is open and transparent about the guidelines used for listing caches. Sometimes the communication is not a clear as it should be. Sometimes a new interpretation of the guidelines is used and doesn't get communicated by changes to the guidelines or notice in the forums. In other case I've seen discussion lead to clarification. I suspect the next guideline upgrade may be much clearer about there needing to be a cache to be found. They might even indicate what kinds of proof the reviewers can ask for.

 

3 I suspect that new cachers coming to the forum would be happy to know that the reviewers do their jobs and review caches for meeting the guidelines. I believe most will be happy to know that if someone list a cache on Geocaching.com that cache is likely to be there and that when caches get multiple DNFs that cache owners will check on the cache. I suspect that many will see as much blame in this case falls on the cache owner as it does on the reviewer. There were ample opportunities given for the cache owner to ask question of the reviewer and determine what needed to be done to keep the cache from being archived (or even for getting it unarchived). Instead when the cache was archive, the owner, feeling that he couldn't fight city hall went out at night and removed the cache and threw it away. At this point it is moot, the cache is no longer there, if it ever was, and the archive stands.

[Clan Riffster]

I didn't see any change to the guidelines prohibiting very difficult to find caches

True. the guidelines look pretty much the same to me.

Included in my perusing is the section mentioned by Nomex in his cache disabling note:

"This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found. The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it or archive it, after picking up any geo-litter. See the maintenance section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines:"

Let's review the linked section of the guidelines;

"Cache Maintenance"

"As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically,"

Looking at the cache page, Super Fly checked his cache 3 times before being asked, once after being asked and once after it was archived. How many trips does it take to fulfill the guideline requirements?

"and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.)."

There is nothing on the cache page to suggest the cache was missing, damaged or wet, except Super Fly's May 25th maintenance visit advising that he found the log was damp. Naturally, he could've deleted any logs indicating these problems, but that's his prerogative as a cache owner, so long as he checks up on his cache and addresses any posted concerns. It sure looks like that's what he was doing with his three maintenance visits before all this silliness.

"In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, we may archive the listing."

How does one define "properly maintained"? Does checking on the cache, as Super Fly did, no longer count as proper maintenance? You keep repeating the same mantra, advising us that this is a unique situation, and that those of us with challenging hides need not be concerned. Frankly, if Groundspeak, and its agents, can ignore the fact that cache owners are fully compliant with the guidelines, and take harsh action against them, I think many of us should all be concerned. Those who only hide P&Gs need not worry.

 

Further disturbing is Nomex's interpretation of the guidelines, stating that a cache which has not been found is in violation.

 

I'm not seeing that in my reading of the guidelines.

 

Do you interpret them this way?

 

If so, according to your interpretation, how long must a cache go unfound, before it becomes a violation?

[knowschad]

[ How we can expect GS to deal with very-difficult-to-find caches is.

Yup. Like this one, perhaps? http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...52-c6eba273563f

 

or this one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...3a-82e062e57e27 (hey, at least this one has one find!)

 

I'm sure there are many other examples that are equivilent. I also sure hope that I didn't just "out" two caches that will soon be joining the fate of this one!!

Edited November 14, 2009 by knowschad

[knowschad]

I didn't see any change to the guidelines prohibiting very difficult to find caches, nor have I seen a rash of unfound caches being archived. There is no evidence that this is anything other than a unique situation. Owners of difficult to find caches can rest easy.

I tend to agree with you... at least, I sure hope that you are right, but unless you have some sort of insider information that the rest of us are missing out on, there is no promise that this is true. However, count me among those that are confident that Groundspeak will never say more than they already have about this matter.

[Clan Riffster]

There is certainly an implication that if many people DNF your cache the reviewer may assume it is missing and ask that you do a maintenance visit.

Yup. A perfectly reasonable request.

Looks like Super Fly also found it a reasonable request, as he did just that.

Then his cache was archived any way.

 

But ultimately a cache owner could alway take a reviewer to the cache and show them it is there.

I have a pretty good working relationship with my 3 area reviewers.

If one of them asked me to do this, I would be happy to.

According to Super Fly, he would've also been happy to.

If they had requested such a thing.

 

If you are going to play that game be warned that you may need to provide proof your cache is really there.

Agreed. I think that once a particular region collectively decides that a cache does not exist, the owner should be willing to provide proof that it is there. While I've said it in the past, allow me to reiterate that this is a game based largely on faith, from both sides. If a community loses faith with you, and your reviewer loses faith with you, you should either be willing to demonstrate your cache or walk away from the game. That responsibility lies with the cache owner. The responsibility for asking for that degree of proof lies with the reviewers. If Super Fly has been honest, the reviewers dropped the ball in this aspect.

 

What we don't know is the exact way a reviewer determines there isn't a cache to find.

That's what I would like to know. I suspect that many of us in this thread are wondering the same thing. These are fairly simple questions, which TPTB could easily answer, without violating any privacy concerns. The 5/5 night Wherigo that I'm building is, in the end, going to cost me a lot of time and $$$ to assemble and place. Now I'm not sure it's worth the effort, considering that TPTB can arbitrarily decide that my cache violates the guidelines simply because it doesn't get found in a timely manner, then close ranks, refusing to discuss the matter openly.

(In the event any of my local reviewers are perusing this thread, I openly offer my services to accompany you to any of my hides. No need to draft any assistance from across the country)

 

There were ample opportunities given for the cache owner to ask question of the reviewer and determine what needed to be done to keep the cache from being archived

I can't imagine that Super Fly would have any questions, until the deed was done.

From his perspective, a reviewer asked him to check his cache, citing a nonexistent guideline.

Rather than argue the fact that a cache being unfound does not constitute a guidelines violation, Super Fly complied with the request, checking on his cache.

Without any further communication, his cache was then archived.

Nomex's note may of well read, "We don't care what you do. We're nuking this sucker", as that was the end result.

Regarding the communication aspect of this incident, rather than blaming Super Fly, who complied with the reviewer's request, I think the blame rests with Nomex, who opted not to ask for proof.

[+briansnat]

I didn't see any change to the guidelines prohibiting very difficult to find caches, nor have I seen a rash of unfound caches being archived. There is no evidence that this is anything other than a unique situation. Owners of difficult to find caches can rest easy.

I tend to agree with you... at least, I sure hope that you are right, but unless you have some sort of insider information that the rest of us are missing out on, there is no promise that this is true. However, count me among those that are confident that Groundspeak will never say more than they already have about this matter.

 

There is no promise that it true, nor is there a promise that easy to find caches won't be banned either. This situation is so rare that it warranted this multi page thread, yet I bet that dozens of easy to find caches are archived every year under questionable circumstances, but don't see anybody running around wondering if

there is to be a ban on easy to find caches.

[knowschad]

Most cachers feel that caches are meant to be found. A hide can be challenging but it shouldn't be near impossible. The main reason for camouflage should be to keep the cache from being muggled. A few cacher owners on the other hand have decided to make it a game between the hiders and finders and try to make a cache that can't be found. There isn't a guideline yet preventing this, but it may be that reviewers have a prejudice against such kinds of hides. Any cache with a significant number of DNFs that has never been found might look suspicious. If you are going to play that game be warned that you may need to provide proof your cache is really there.

But SF was never asked to provide that proof.

 

And so what if "most" cachers feel that caches are meant to be found. Some caches (particularily those with the dreaded 5 star difficulty rating) are meant to be only found by the best, and some (maybe even many) cachers are more than willing to take up that challenge. There should be nothing "suspicious" about a 5 difficulty cache not being found! On the other hand, a 5 difficulty cache that is being found on a regular basis might be suspected of having too low a rating.

[Clan Riffster]

yet I bet that dozens of easy to find caches are archived every year under questionable circumstances...

I know you've been playing this game longer than I have, but I'm not seeing what you are claiming. In just under 5 years, every single Groundspeak based archival I've seen has been entirely supported by the guidelines. While I have seen a few unpopular archivals, such as some virts and some Ape caches, in each of those cases Groundspeak followed established protocol. Now it seems they've thrown protocol to the winds by supporting the archival of a cache with an active, guideline compliant owner. It certainly gives the impression that Groundspeak will defend their reviewers, even when they act unjustly.