Jump to content

Rogue Reviewer?


Recommended Posts

They never actually said SF was a liar. They did however certainly infer that he was lying.

 

No, they implied that he was lying; the readers inferred that he was lying.

 

Sorry. Grammar peeves are lame, I know. I can't help myself.

 

Well, before they could imply it they had to infer it from information that is not available to us.

Link to comment

They never actually said SF was a liar. They did however certainly infer that he was lying.

 

No, they implied that he was lying; the readers inferred that he was lying.

 

Sorry. Grammar peeves are lame, I know. I can't help myself.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer

 

infer

- 4 dictionary results

in⋅fer

  /ɪnˈfɜr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-fur] Show IPA verb, -ferred, -fer⋅ring.

Use infer in a Sentence

See web results for infer

See images of infer

–verb (used with object)

1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.

2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.

3. to guess; speculate; surmise.

4. to hint; imply; suggest.

Link to comment
If they had extra information, let them come out and say they had extra information.

 

Perhaps they can't do that because of a need to protect the source of that "extra information?"

 

FELDERCARB!

All they had to do is say "We have information that we can't thare that allowed us to come to our conclusion"

 

They haven't said that much. All they say is "We made the right decision". The right decision for who? Who are they really protecting here by keeping quiet?

Link to comment
Sorry. Grammar peeves are lame, I know. I can't help myself.

It's kewl. We all have our quirks. :)

My pet peeve is accountability, or rather, the lack of, both on a personal level and a professional level.

Perhaps that's what is driving my continued interest in this incident?

An agent of Groundspeak posted something blatantly negative to a cache page.

The CO asked, publicly, for clarification, waiving his privacy concerns.

Groundspeak continues chanting the "privacy" mantra.

The innuendos are that the CO acted in bad faith, and that Groundspeak has evidence of this.

As such, the blatantly negative public post was fully justified.

But they refuse to share with us the nature of that evidence.

It's almost as if they hope enough defenders will come forth, spewing rhetoric, so they can shut this thread down. :)

Link to comment
If they had extra information, let them come out and say they had extra information.

Perhaps they can't do that because of a need to protect the source of that "extra information?"

FELDERCARB!

All they had to do is say "We have information that we can't thare that allowed us to come to our conclusion"

 

They haven't said that much.

 

Yes, they have:

 

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

 

".... 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."

It is Groundspeak’s policy to protect the privacy of the individual geocacher, regardless of who they are or what they may have done. That is the reason why I have not posted here with any additional details, such as contents of private email messages.

 

That said, I will emphasize that each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions. No one has gone "rogue."

Link to comment
2. If I were on a jury and had to decide this case of SuperFly vs. TPTB? I'd be firmly on SF's side.

If you were on a jury and had to decide this case of SuperFly vs. TPTB, you would probably be privy to a LOT more information than you have now.

Not True. The jury knows only what goes on in open court, here in the forums, just like the rest of us :) . Nobody gives them secret info. Our justice system prohibits it.

This is NOT a courtroom. This is only a discussion forum.

 

If Groundspeak were defending themselves in an actual civil or criminal trial you can bet your Garmin they would be ready and willing to present more information than we’ve seen here.

 

We curious onlookers who are not involved in this situation, however, have no "need to know" any of the details of private disputes between Groundspeak and individual customers. That is between the cache owner and the website, and is none of our business.

 

I for one am very happy with the privacy policy MissJenn explained.

 

Look at it this way: How would you like it if Groundspeak were to broadcast the details of every disagreement YOU had with them? No thanks. If they were to do that to Superfly I think I might even be more likely to quit as a customer, not less.

 

Even if SuperFly gives them permission to do so I’m guessing they will not publish any more personal details, for legal reasons. I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine that the liability risk of violating a customer’s privacy would far outweigh any benefit they might receive by satisfying the curiosity of a handful of handwringers and gossipers.

Link to comment

When an organization receives a complaint from one of it's members it must act to verify the complaint. The organization will contact the member the complaint pertains to. They will only tell that person that a complaint has been made, what the complaint is, and that an investigation or fact finding process is going to begin. The organization will not divulge the identity of the member making the complaint, which is standard practice.

 

Once the investigation or fact finding process starts, everyone involved will be questioned to obtain all of the facts so that the organization can make a determination on the validity of the complaint. Once a decision is made, the affected member will be notified of the decision. They will be the only one besides the organization that knows the outcome. It is not shared with the other members of the organization or anyone else, even the person making the complaint. This is how businesses are run, whether they are public or private.

 

If the affected member does not like the decision, they will grieve it to a higher source. This higher source will take in all the information and make a final decision. This decision will be sent to the affected member and the organization only and no one else. The only person that can release any information, unless they are bound not to, is the affected member. This member can slant the truth anyway they want. If they continue to slant the truth, than the organization may follow up with further discipline or just let the member vent if it is nothing too serious.

 

The only thing that the rest of the membership not involved in this process might possibly see or hear is a change to a certain rule, an additional or new rule, or the removal of a rule to prevent this type of thing from happening again.

 

Does this look like what's going on here? Does to me. This is just how things are run in business. The only people that need to know what is going on are the affected members and the organization. No one else.

 

Edited to add: I am not trying to defend anyone in this post. Just point out how a disciplinary investigation usually goes.

Edited by ao318
Link to comment
If they had extra information, let them come out and say they had extra information.

 

Perhaps they can't do that because of a need to protect the source of that "extra information?"

 

FELDERCARB!

All they had to do is say "We have information that we can't thare that allowed us to come to our conclusion"

 

They haven't said that much. All they say is "We made the right decision". The right decision for who? Who are they really protecting here by keeping quiet?

Is it possible that there is a 3rd as of yet unnamed party that has provided info that allowed Groundspeak to come to their conclusion?

Edited by traildad
Link to comment

FELDERCARB!

All they had to do is say "We have information that we can't thare that allowed us to come to our conclusion"

 

They haven't said that much. All they say is "We made the right decision". The right decision for who? Who are they really protecting here by keeping quiet?

Is it possible that there is a 3rd as of yet unnamed party that has provided info that allowed Groundspeak to come to their conclusion?

 

I have not ruled out that possibility but if there were a thrid party, you would think it would be OK to say that they had third party proof. Unless, of course, the third party was someone who was privvy to information only SuperFly could have given. As such, then SuperFly would know exactly who it was that ratted him out.

Knowing that this is an option, Groundspeak would be doing good by letting us all know that that wasn't the case. Leaving it in limbo could make SuperFly think his secret was shared by that one person, even if it wasn't, thus putting undue stress on a potential third party.

Link to comment
I have not ruled out that possibility but if there were a thrid party, you would think it would be OK to say that they had third party proof.
This is, of course, assuming you had the right to know OR the right to make the decisions for Groundspeak.

 

You don't. Neither do I*. This isn't going to change, so let it be.

 

*Yes, as the nosy person I can be, I'd love to know all the details. This isn't going to happen, though, and I realize this.

Link to comment
What happened was done to be in the best interests of the game or Groundspeak as a business...

I'm not sure how either are true.

 

Last first. How would the existence of a cache that passes all tests of the guidelines and is a legal placement not be in the best interests of Groundspeak. I would think the "interest" is the one places a cache within 528' of that spot.

But if the cache did not exist it is not in compliance with the guidelines. How would it be in Groundspeak's or the game's interest to list caches that comply with all the guidelines except the one that says there must be a container and log to sign? The interest of ensuring that caches exists might even be so important as to trump the interest of not list a cache that does exists but for which there are some who doubt the existence.

 

On the first point, how does a cache that is not found bad for the hobby?
Caches are meant to be found. Most cache owners, even those how hide particularly difficult caches mean for them to be found. Should a cache go unfound for two years and had several people making a concerted effort to look for it, one might think it is in the interest of the sport for the cache owner to offer hints. Cache owners who seem to go out of their way to frustrate other cachers are not likely to be as good for the game as cache owners who make caches challenging enough to let finders feel as sense of accomplishment in finding the caches without getting too frustrated.

 

We don't know if the cache was there or not. SF says yes. GS says no. Which is it?

 

I think it's not SF that GS is protecting but some third party(ies) who were able to convince them the cache did not exist.

This is of course the unknown. The CO didn't respond with proof that cache was there. The reviewer posted a note that didn't clearly state that this was what he was looking for. And there may have been some additional information (beside the DNFs) to lead to the conclusion that the cache wasn't there and GS isn't sharing what that is. StarBrand believes that we don't need to know to be able to say that GS acted in it's best interest or in the best interest of the game.

 

I'd like to see the guidelines clarified (so people understand that if they make a cache so hard that it never gets found they will have to show proof that it exists) and the reviewers be given guidance in using canned responses that don't solicit the response that they are looking for. Have them clearly state what is needed to keep a cache from being archived or explicitly ask that the owner contact them if this is something that can't be stated on the cache page.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

 

I'd like to see the guidelines clarified (so people understand that if they make a cache so hard that it never gets found they will have to show proof that it exists) and the reviewers be given guidance in using canned responses that don't solicit the response that they are looking for. Have them clearly state what is needed to keep a cache from being archived or explicitly ask that the owner contact them if this is something that can't be stated on the cache page.

 

That's what I said will probably happen in my post below.

 

The only thing that the rest of the membership not involved in this process might possibly see or hear is a change to a certain rule, an additional or new rule, or the removal of a rule to prevent this type of thing from happening again.

 

Link to comment
But if the cache did not exist it is not in compliance with the guidelines.
We don't know that it didn't exist, only that it wasn't found.

 

I don't see how archiving an effectively unfindable (by local cachers) cache benefits the game when it's possible an out-of-towner could find it. If it's there waiting to be found by someone who actually can find it, then I don't see why it should be archived.

 

Caches are meant to be found. ...
So, you're saying there is an upper limit as to how hard a cache can be. What would that criteria be? A certain number of DNFs, number of years, number of folks whining they can't find it, what?

 

Sure, caches are meant to be found, but not by everyone, every time.

Link to comment

FELDERCARB!

All they had to do is say "We have information that we can't thare that allowed us to come to our conclusion"

 

They haven't said that much. All they say is "We made the right decision". The right decision for who? Who are they really protecting here by keeping quiet?

Is it possible that there is a 3rd as of yet unnamed party that has provided info that allowed Groundspeak to come to their conclusion?

 

I have not ruled out that possibility but if there were a thrid party, you would think it would be OK to say that they had third party proof. Unless, of course, the third party was someone who was privvy to information only SuperFly could have given. As such, then SuperFly would know exactly who it was that ratted him out. Knowing that this is an option, Groundspeak would be doing good by letting us all know that that wasn't the case. Leaving it in limbo could make SuperFly think his secret was shared by that one person, even if it wasn't, thus putting undue stress on a potential third party.

I find this particular line to be highly inflammatory. None of us know the details of this situation. I hope you can all just let this go and quit thinking and believing the worst about any or all of the parties involved. A cache got archived. Right or wrong. Deal with it!

Link to comment

FELDERCARB!

All they had to do is say "We have information that we can't thare that allowed us to come to our conclusion"

 

They haven't said that much. All they say is "We made the right decision". The right decision for who? Who are they really protecting here by keeping quiet?

Is it possible that there is a 3rd as of yet unnamed party that has provided info that allowed Groundspeak to come to their conclusion?

 

I have not ruled out that possibility but if there were a thrid party, you would think it would be OK to say that they had third party proof. Unless, of course, the third party was someone who was privvy to information only SuperFly could have given. As such, then SuperFly would know exactly who it was that ratted him out. Knowing that this is an option, Groundspeak would be doing good by letting us all know that that wasn't the case. Leaving it in limbo could make SuperFly think his secret was shared by that one person, even if it wasn't, thus putting undue stress on a potential third party.

I find this particular line to be highly inflammatory. None of us know the details of this situation. I hope you can all just let this go and quit thinking and believing the worst about any or all of the parties involved. A cache got archived. Right or wrong. Deal with it!

 

Out of context, that line would be inflammatory but in context, it's benign.

I don't see why you took it out of context.

 

Why should we leave it alone? Do you want to be part of a community that will blindly allow radical actions to be ignored?

Link to comment

FELDERCARB!

All they had to do is say "We have information that we can't thare that allowed us to come to our conclusion"

 

They haven't said that much. All they say is "We made the right decision". The right decision for who? Who are they really protecting here by keeping quiet?

Is it possible that there is a 3rd as of yet unnamed party that has provided info that allowed Groundspeak to come to their conclusion?

 

I have not ruled out that possibility but if there were a thrid party, you would think it would be OK to say that they had third party proof. Unless, of course, the third party was someone who was privvy to information only SuperFly could have given. As such, then SuperFly would know exactly who it was that ratted him out. Knowing that this is an option, Groundspeak would be doing good by letting us all know that that wasn't the case. Leaving it in limbo could make SuperFly think his secret was shared by that one person, even if it wasn't, thus putting undue stress on a potential third party.

I find this particular line to be highly inflammatory. None of us know the details of this situation. I hope you can all just let this go and quit thinking and believing the worst about any or all of the parties involved. A cache got archived. Right or wrong. Deal with it!

 

Out of context, that line would be inflammatory but in context, it's benign.

I don't see why you took it out of context.

 

Why should we leave it alone? Do you want to be part of a community that will blindly allow radical actions to be ignored?

I simply find the "ratted him out" statement to be out of order. To me it implies the hide was bogus and you have a problem with an honest cacher reporting a problem.

Link to comment

FELDERCARB!

All they had to do is say "We have information that we can't thare that allowed us to come to our conclusion"

 

They haven't said that much. All they say is "We made the right decision". The right decision for who? Who are they really protecting here by keeping quiet?

Is it possible that there is a 3rd as of yet unnamed party that has provided info that allowed Groundspeak to come to their conclusion?

 

I have not ruled out that possibility but if there were a thrid party, you would think it would be OK to say that they had third party proof. Unless, of course, the third party was someone who was privvy to information only SuperFly could have given. As such, then SuperFly would know exactly who it was that ratted him out. Knowing that this is an option, Groundspeak would be doing good by letting us all know that that wasn't the case. Leaving it in limbo could make SuperFly think his secret was shared by that one person, even if it wasn't, thus putting undue stress on a potential third party.

I find this particular line to be highly inflammatory. None of us know the details of this situation. I hope you can all just let this go and quit thinking and believing the worst about any or all of the parties involved. A cache got archived. Right or wrong. Deal with it!

 

Out of context, that line would be inflammatory but in context, it's benign.

I don't see why you took it out of context.

 

Why should we leave it alone? Do you want to be part of a community that will blindly allow radical actions to be ignored?

I simply find the "ratted him out" statement to be out of order. To me it implies the hide was bogus and you have a problem with an honest cacher reporting a problem.

 

Read it again. I am not, in any way, suggesting anyone ratted anyone out. I was merely suggesting possibilities that could exist that could confound the understanding of why GS staff is not giving us all of the details.

If you read it as a paragraph instead of a sentence, it might make more sense.

Link to comment
So many assumptions.

So many perspectives.

So many judgements.

So few facts.

Who has those facts, and how can we get them?

I fully acknowledge that you want the facts, and I also am curious as to what the full truth is. I, however, can have a good time caching without knowing.

 

From experience as a reviewer, I know that caches have been published when no cache was in place. Whether this is the case or not, I do not know. I do know that these situations cause tension between cachers and for that reason alone, is not good for the hobby. This is supposed to be light and fun, not full of drama.

 

Whether the cache ever existed is moot at this point. I feel this thread should be closed only because it is so full of bickering that it causes too much hate and discontent among the masses.

 

Everyone is so busy grabbing pitchforks and torches that the truth is no longer relevant.

Link to comment

There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

Another thread was started fbecause of this thread, people have shown how upsetting this is and yet, GS sits back and ignores it, hoping it'll soon just fizzle out. This is likely to happen, but you can bet those of us who really do care are not going to forget...

 

No, it certainly isn't good for a supposedly light and fun activity, but this could all easily go away if only the truth was known. And yes, the truth IS important to some of us. Also important is how this was handled regardless of who was at fault.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many a very vocal some of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

<snip>

 

Fixed it for ya.

Many of us? I think not.

You, Clan Riffster, Knowschad, Dinoprophet, and Bittsen have 172 of the 679 posts so far or 25% of the conversation. Add the next 10 posters, which includes both of the CO's accounts and we're up to a whopping 330 of the total posts. That makes up over 48% of the discussion. I don't think many of the worldwide community of geocachers is affected by this issue, and most don't even know nor care about it at this point, if they were even aware of it.

 

Apologies to the bard, but it's-"Much ado about not so much" (as it isn't completely nothing.)

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

Yes, I have nothing better to do with my time. :)

 

If you click the number of replies to a thread from the main page it displays the number of posts made by each respondent to the thread.

 

PS despite my sig line, the above stats were in fact properly calculated and doublechecked. They were not made up on the spot. They represent the accurate minority.

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many a very vocal some of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

<snip>

 

Fixed it for ya.

Many of us? I think not.

You, Clan Riffster, Knowschad, Dinoprophet, and Bittsen have 172 of the 679 posts so far or 25% of the conversation. Add the next 10 posters, which includes both of the CO's accounts and we're up to a whopping 330 of the total posts. That makes up over 48% of the discussion. I don't think many of the worldwide community of geocachers is affected by this issue, and most don't even know nor care about it at this point, if they were even aware of it.

 

Apologies to the bard, but it's-"Much ado about not so much" (as it isn't completely nothing.)

 

Didn't recall asking or needing your help with the definition. Many means more than a few...I would say this means my use was correct.

Link to comment
That is between the cache owner and the website, and is none of our business.

 

Normally, I would agree with you. Most of what occurs between TPTB and a cache owner is strictly between them, and neither of them have any obligation to explain themselves to us. Certainly, on occasion, exceptions have been made, such as when the occasional ranter/raver comes in here spreading hate and discontent regarding a cache whose publication was declined. The raver tells only part of their side of the story, trying to generate angst against TPTB and support for himself. After the melodrama reaches a fever pitch, some kindly reviewer will chime in, typing something like "I looked at your unpublished cache and I see that your local reviewer told you that your cache was declined because _________ (<~~~ fill in blank). The reviewer also asked that, after you make your corrections, you post a reviewer note on the cache page indicating the change. You still haven't done that." Any privacy concerns are conveniently tossed aside for the sake of resolving the complaints and we all get a good chuckle.

 

However, I don't think that this issue is strictly between TPTB and Super Fly. Nomex decided to involve the rest of us when he opted to post a decidedly negative post on the cache page. A post which he deliberately edited to enhance the negative impact. Personally, I, and many others in here, feel that the context of Nomex's post called Super Fly a liar, and those who would argue the technicality that he didn't use the term "liar" are deluding themselves. Over the course of the cache's two year life span, Super Fly posted 4 maintenance visits detailing the fact that the cache was present. By saying that the cache was not present for those years, Nomex is making the very public claim that Super Fly's comments were untruthful. While "untruthful" seems a bit more politically correct than "liar", they mean the same thing, and they have the same impact.

 

Nomex decided to involve the rest of us with that post. By standing behind Nomex's slanderous post, Groundspeak also decided to involve the rest of us. Claiming they can't discuss it further because of privacy concerns, (which Super Fly already waived), is nothing more than wagon circling.

 

At least that's what it looks like from the cheap seats. :)

 

<snip for brevity>Just point out how a disciplinary investigation usually goes.

As someone who is involved in many investigations, I appreciate your explanation of how the process is supposed to work. B)

The one question left unresolved by your explanation is this:

If, in that scenario, an agent conducting the investigation chooses to make public, negative comments directed at the subject of the investigation, smearing their reputation across the Internet for all to see, should the company conducting the investigation be able to hide behind privacy concerns? Obviously, Nomex had no concerns for Super Fly's privacy when he posted the derogatory comment.

 

Is it possible that there is a 3rd as of yet unnamed party that has provided info that allowed Groundspeak to come to their conclusion?

Of course! In this day and age, anything is possible. It is equally possible that the local cachers couldn't find the cache, and in a fit of entitlement, decided it must not be there. They clamored behind the scenes, whining endlessly to their local reviewers. The local reviewers decided to involve an out of state reviewer, so they could claim innocence in any subsequent firestorm. The out of state reviewer decided, without a shred of evidence, that the CO was a liar, and posted an edited archive note to reflect his decision. Groundspeak immediately realized that their out of state reviewer went way out of bounds, and decided to circle the wagons rather than explain themselves.

 

We could cite possibilities all day.

 

I'd rather stick to what's known.

 

1 ) A cache was published with the presumption that it was in place.

 

2 ) It was listed as a high difficulty hide.

 

3 ) The owner posted several notes indicating that he had checked the cache.

 

4 ) Nomex disabled the cache, asking the CO to check it.

 

5 ) The CO complied, checking on the cache.

 

6 ) Nomex archived it, stating that the cache had not been in place for months/years.

 

7 ) Another cacher posted this to these forums.

 

8 ) The CO waived his privacy concerns, asking for an explanation.

 

9 ) Groundspeak has refused to offer a detailed explanation.

 

The interest of ensuring that caches exists might even be so important as to trump the interest of not list a cache that does exists but for which there are some who doubt the existence.

How many times have we heard folks in here chuckling about DNFs on their cache pages in which the seekers state words to the effect of, "This one must be missing. I looked really, really hard". :D Should Groundspeak give some measure of value to a cacher who failed to locate a cache? Should their failures be grounds for direct action against the cache, when the CO advises that they checked it, and it is still in play? What value should we place on doubt? I'd rather put value in facts.

 

Caches are meant to be found.

I would like to edit this to read "Caches are meant to be found by those who are capable of finding them".

In another thread, someone mentioned a cache that is hidden way up on a mountain peak. I'm not physically able to make that ascent, so that cache is not meant to be found by me. The same is true for caches that require the use of scuba equipment, as I am not certified in the use of such equipment. The same is true for caches that require extensive hikes, as both of my knees are blown out. Puzzle caches which exceed my limited brain power are also not meant to be found by me. All caches are not meant to be found by all seekers. In this case, the cache was only meant to be found by someone with sufficient skill and determination. By the D/T rating alone, I would see that this one was not meant to be found by the P&G crowd. I'm betting it is that same entitlement based P&G crowd who made the initial claims that the cache "must not exist", starting the chain of events.

Link to comment
So many assumptions.

So many perspectives.

So many judgements.

So few facts.

Who has those facts, and how can we get them?

I fully acknowledge that you want the facts, and I also am curious as to what the full truth is. I, however, can have a good time caching without knowing.

 

From experience as a reviewer, I know that caches have been published when no cache was in place. Whether this is the case or not, I do not know. I do know that these situations cause tension between cachers and for that reason alone, is not good for the hobby. This is supposed to be light and fun, not full of drama.

 

Whether the cache ever existed is moot at this point. I feel this thread should be closed only because it is so full of bickering that it causes too much hate and discontent among the masses.

 

Everyone is so busy grabbing pitchforks and torches that the truth is no longer relevant.

Bolding is mine...but I would agree with the statement 100%...

 

As for my personal opinion (no more than that):

What had been done...has been done...regardless of who is/isn't speaking...clearly there are other things that lead up to what took place...

Link to comment

There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many a very vocal some of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

<snip>

 

Fixed it for ya.

Many of us? I think not.

You, Clan Riffster, Knowschad, Dinoprophet, and Bittsen have 172 of the 679 posts so far or 25% of the conversation. Add the next 10 posters, which includes both of the CO's accounts and we're up to a whopping 330 of the total posts. That makes up over 48% of the discussion. I don't think many of the worldwide community of geocachers is affected by this issue, and most don't even know nor care about it at this point, if they were even aware of it.

 

Apologies to the bard, but it's-"Much ado about not so much" (as it isn't completely nothing.)

 

Please don't assume you know what those of us not posting frequently to this thread think about the importance of this. Most of my points and counterpoints have been made.

 

Over 24,000 views does saw something about people thinking this thread is important. Unfortunately you can't see how many times a particular poster views this thread to get your stats.

 

Yes many of the worldwide geocaching community doesn't know about this thread because most of them don't even look at the forums. You can't decide if they care about it or not.

 

I do know that reviewers are people like us and have differing views on good and bad caches. Some may also let their personal views govern whether a cache may get published or not. I have seen caches published that another local reviewer would have denied.

 

Privacy issues keep me from revealing details.

 

Also I would be accused of ratting out a reviewer and another cacher. That could compromise my getting more caches placed and their viability. :lol:

 

edit: to remove my post from the quote block and place it below as it should have been

Edited by ironman114
Link to comment

There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many a very vocal some of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

<snip>

 

Fixed it for ya.

Many of us? I think not.

You, Clan Riffster, Knowschad, Dinoprophet, and Bittsen have 172 of the 679 posts so far or 25% of the conversation. Add the next 10 posters, which includes both of the CO's accounts and we're up to a whopping 330 of the total posts. That makes up over 48% of the discussion. I don't think many of the worldwide community of geocachers is affected by this issue, and most don't even know nor care about it at this point, if they were even aware of it.

 

Apologies to the bard, but it's-"Much ado about not so much" (as it isn't completely nothing.)

 

I thought I'd help the statistics. Just because I hadn't posted anything about this topic until now doesn't mean I don't care about the issue. I've been following this for several days, waiting to see if we ever get any information on what happened. I'm in the process of planning a difficult cache, so in my own personal opinion, I feel that some knowledge of whether this was a result of the 0 finds idea that has been presented on numerous occasions.

 

So now you can add one more name to your list of who cares.

Link to comment

There'd be no need for pitchforks and torches if only TPTB would speak up. Instead, they choose to ignoresomething which is OBVIOUSLY important to many a very vocal some of us as 14 pages would attest to, hence the "drama".

 

<snip>

 

Fixed it for ya.

Many of us? I think not.

You, Clan Riffster, Knowschad, Dinoprophet, and Bittsen have 172 of the 679 posts so far or 25% of the conversation. Add the next 10 posters, which includes both of the CO's accounts and we're up to a whopping 330 of the total posts. That makes up over 48% of the discussion. I don't think many of the worldwide community of geocachers is affected by this issue, and most don't even know nor care about it at this point, if they were even aware of it.

 

Apologies to the bard, but it's-"Much ado about not so much" (as it isn't completely nothing.)

 

Actually you didn't fix it for Roddy. You fixed it for you.

 

"Much ado about not so much"? Look at the number of times this thread has been viewed. Obviously many cachers have some interest in this topic whether they are on one side or another or neutral.

Link to comment

I thought I'd help the statistics. Just because I hadn't posted anything about this topic until now doesn't mean I don't care about the issue.

And just because I am one of the top four posters to this topic, a read of my posts would show that a few are totally frivolous, quite a few are of the "hmmm... interesting" or "I'd like to hear more" variety, etc. I may have more free time to post than others. The same may be true for the other three "top posters". In fact, this post is one more that should not count toward my total, if you (wimseyguy) are going to use that total to prove a point. Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
If they had extra information, let them come out and say they had extra information.

Perhaps they can't do that because of a need to protect the source of that "extra information?"

FELDERCARB!

All they had to do is say "We have information that we can't thare that allowed us to come to our conclusion"

 

They haven't said that much.

 

Yes, they have:

 

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

 

".... 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."

It is Groundspeak's policy to protect the privacy of the individual geocacher, regardless of who they are or what they may have done. That is the reason why I have not posted here with any additional details, such as contents of private email messages.

 

That said, I will emphasize that each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions. No one has gone "rogue."

 

Thats not much. It's certainly not enough to address the concerns of some of their members.

Link to comment
So many assumptions.

So many perspectives.

So many judgements.

So few facts.

Who has those facts, and how can we get them?

 

What makes you think that you have any right to the facts? You have no involvement in this incident whatsovever.

 

Nobody claimed to have a right to the facts. But we do have concerns about how this incident was handled by GS and, as members of their organization, there is nothing wrong with us asking questions. It is bothersome that GS has chosen to ignore the concerns of their members.

Link to comment
That is between the cache owner and the website, and is none of our business.

Normally, I would agree with you. Most of what occurs between TPTB and a cache owner is strictly between them, and neither of them have any obligation to explain themselves to us. Certainly, on occasion, exceptions have been made, such as when the occasional ranter/raver comes in here spreading hate and discontent regarding a cache whose publication was declined. The raver tells only part of their side of the story, trying to generate angst against TPTB and support for himself. After the melodrama reaches a fever pitch, some kindly reviewer will chime in, typing something like "I looked at your unpublished cache and I see that your local reviewer told you that your cache was declined because _________ (<~~~ fill in blank). The reviewer also asked that, after you make your corrections, you post a reviewer note on the cache page indicating the change. You still haven't done that." Any privacy concerns are conveniently tossed aside for the sake of resolving the complaints and we all get a good chuckle.

 

However, I don't think that this issue is strictly between TPTB and Super Fly. Nomex decided to involve the rest of us when he opted to post a decidedly negative post on the cache page. A post which he deliberately edited to enhance the negative impact. Personally, I, and many others in here, feel that the context of Nomex's post called Super Fly a liar, and those who would argue the technicality that he didn't use the term "liar" are deluding themselves. Over the course of the cache's two year life span, Super Fly posted 4 maintenance visits detailing the fact that the cache was present. By saying that the cache was not present for those years, Nomex is making the very public claim that Super Fly's comments were untruthful. While "untruthful" seems a bit more politically correct than "liar", they mean the same thing, and they have the same impact.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying:

 

(1) Normally I would agree with you KBI, because what goes on between a cache hider and TPTB is none of my business – except that ...

(2) ... in this case, a reviewer publicly implied something bad about the cache hider.

 

Is that right? Have I interpreted your argument correctly? Because if I have, I still don’t follow you.

 

Here is why: So what if the owner of the listing was publicly accused of something bad? How does that entitle you – or me, or anyone else – to any more information than we have now? How does that make it your business? Or mine?

 

And by the way, I fully agree with your assessment that Nomex called Superfly a liar. That much is clear. I just don’t see how that fact entitles you to private information.

Link to comment
I'd rather stick to what's known.

 

1 ) A cache was published with the presumption that it was in place.

 

2 ) It was listed as a high difficulty hide.

 

3 ) The owner posted several notes indicating that he had checked the cache.

 

4 ) Nomex disabled the cache, asking the CO to check it.

 

5 ) The CO complied, checking on the cache.

 

6 ) Nomex archived it, stating that the cache had not been in place for months/years.

 

7 ) Another cacher posted this to these forums.

 

8 ) The CO waived his privacy concerns, asking for an explanation.

 

9 ) Groundspeak has refused to offer a detailed explanation.

If searching for challenging caches over the years has taught me anything, it has taught me to question my assumptions. I suggest you might want to do that here.

 

If you’re going to "stick to what’s known," then, you might want to reconsider item number five on your list. (And BTW, I assume what you really meant to say there is "The CO complied, checking on the cache and confirming its existence.")

 

For the sake of argument, let’s assume for a moment that Nomex is right and there was never a cache there at all. (Logic dictates that this is a possibility you must allow for – unless you, Clan Riffster, have ironclad proof the cache was there.) Given that as a premise, then, I ask you: When Superfly "checked on the cache," what did he find? If there was never a cache there at all, then how could he, out there all by himself that day, confirm its existence? Or did he visit the location at all? All we really have from Nomex is an accusation, but all we really have from Superfly is his word.

 

Allow me to present a shorter subset of the undisputed facts:

 

Superfly says the cache was there.

 

Nomex says the cache was never there.

 

Do you concur with that list?

 

Based on those two mutually exclusive claims, all I can conclude is that at least one of them is lying. Which one? I have my suspicion, but I really don’t know. It could even be both. But one thing I do know is that item number five on your list is, a best, a highly questionable assumption.

 

And another thing I know is that the folks who own this company have chosen not to disclose any further information due to privacy concerns.

Link to comment

Allow me to present a shorter subset of the undisputed facts:

 

 

Superfly says the cache was there.

Nomex says the cache was never there.

 

Do you concur with that list?

 

Based on those two mutually exclusive claims, all I can conclude is that at least one of them is lying.

Of the two of them, only one can possibly know for sure. The other one can only guess.
Link to comment

Just because a five car pileup causes a fifteen mile backup it doesn't mean that all of the rubberneckers care about the crash or those involved in it.

Just because this thread has almost 25K views doesn't mean that there are thousands of cachers who care. They may just enjoy viewing the drama.

 

I agree that the situation could have been handled differently, and Groundspeak's decision to not provide any additional input into the thread many not have been their wisest public relations move. But it's been 10 days since this thread was started. Does anyone really think that further demands for disclosure will result in a change of stance in Seattle, and all will be revealed?

 

Does anyone who has placed or is planning to place a challenging cache really think that this situation with all of the stated and unknown details will have any bearing on their caches?

 

Are there some or even many cachers who are thankful that this cache isn't showing up on their searches of nearest unfound caches?

Link to comment
Allow me to present a shorter subset of the undisputed facts:

 

Superfly says the cache was there.

Nomex says the cache was never there.

 

Do you concur with that list?

 

Based on those two mutually exclusive claims, all I can conclude is that at least one of them is lying.

Of the two of them, only one can possibly know for sure. The other one can only guess.

Well, not exactly.

 

If Nomex doesn’t know the true nature of the cache for sure, my money is on him having a lot more than a guess to go on when he archived the cache.

 

And it’s entirely possible that they both know the truth, that neither of them is guessing ... and that one of them is simply lying.

Link to comment
Allow me to present a shorter subset of the undisputed facts:

 

Superfly says the cache was there.

Nomex says the cache was never there.

 

Do you concur with that list?

 

Based on those two mutually exclusive claims, all I can conclude is that at least one of them is lying.

Of the two of them, only one can possibly know for sure. The other one can only guess.

Well, not exactly.

 

If Nomex doesn't know the true nature of the cache for sure, my money is on him having a lot more than a guess to go on when he archived the cache.

 

And it's entirely possible that they both know the truth, that neither of them is guessing ... and that one of them is simply lying.

OK, I'll bite. How could Nomex, or anyone other than SF really, truely know that the cache did not exist? Even if Super Fly TOLD them, that in itself could have not been the truth. No, only Super Fly could really know if there was a cache there or not.
Link to comment
OK, I'll bite. How could Nomex, or anyone other than SF really, truely know that the cache did not exist?

If I knew that I could blow this scandal wide open. I'd probably even get my own show. Just like Nancy Grace.

 

All I claimed is that it is possible.

Link to comment
OK, I'll bite. How could Nomex, or anyone other than SF really, truely know that the cache did not exist?

If I knew that I could blow this scandal wide open. I'd probably even get my own show. Just like Nancy Grace.

All I claimed is that it is possible.

But... it is NOT possible. Even if Superfly admitted to Nomex that he never really put a cache in place... even that could have been a lie. Nomex and TPTB at the very best were speculating, right? Not a very likely scenario, I'll admit, but at the same time... well, not a very likely scenario.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...