Rogue Reviewer?

[Compazz Roze]

I've got an idea. Cachers don't log your DNF's. That way difficult hides don't get archived before you get a chance to claim them. Tricksters, like the one here in Indiana, can place as many fraudulent caches as they want and we cachers can ignore them.

Tongue in cheek aside, I (under my other profile) have found many of TDE's caches, including one that hadn't been found in nearly a year. All while it had multiple DNF's, before and after, my find. SF is a crafty dude and I love his containers. Including the giant cache container. I am glad that he's coming back as TDE. Welcome back DUDE!

 

While all the talk in the forum centers around the fact that GS believes that the cache never existed, that's not the real issue here. The real issue is the fact that an out-of-state reviewer archived one of OUR CACHES. (I'm from GR originally- moved here 3 yrs ago) and GS stands behind him/her ????????

 

BULL!

 

He/she called one of our cachers a LIAR????

 

BULL!

 

That's what all this anger is really about. How can someone from CALIFORNIA claim, unequivocally, that it is not there, never having touched our fertile Michigan soil? And to call a Grand Rapidsian an LIAR? I can tell those of you who don't understand the magnitude of this accusation. You NEVER, NEVER , CALL ONE OF US A LIAR. EVER!

Edited November 18, 2009 by Compazz Roze

[+Col. Flagg]

 

It's like this thread. It keeps going and going and.....

[CoyoteRed]

Some things might fall through the cracks.

"Fall though the crack" implies something was missed, a detail overlooked, that would have changed an outcome. What happened here was something was targeted and an action purposely taken to produce the desired outcome regardless of the circumstances or merit.

 

What appears to have happened here is an action taken without merit or cause to affect a desired outcome contrary to established guidelines.

[+bittsen]

In response to the email timeline discrepancies about 30 posts back. My Yahoo Email account typically has the time WAY off. Email time signatures don't mean much.

 

MooseMob, It would be a disservice to close the thread because a couple posters can't stop making things personal. Additionally it would appear that things were being hushed if the thread was closed.

 

The funny thing is we have really only been given one side of the story. The unwillingness to provide the other side of the story is what causes the doubt. If TPTB spoke up, all doubt would be removed. The question is still "Why won't the reviewers in question answer with their side of the story? Are they hiding something?

[+Castle Mischief]

You NEVER, NEVER , CALL ONE OF US A LIAR. EVER!

 

Or what?

 

++

Edited November 18, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+StarBrand]

.....The question is still "Why won't the reviewers in question answer with their side of the story? Are they hiding something?

Framing the question in a highly conspiratorial manor doesn't help much. Besides the question is a dead issue as long long ago Groundspeak invoked privacy as the reason they will not openly discuss it. Some of you folks are just going to have to accept that as fact and move on.

 

I, for one, am completely satisfied that nothing irrational or rogue has occured here and that the decisions were sound and reasonable. I also accept that that will never be enough for others and that ok too but continuing to ask just isn't getting anything anywhere.

[+JeremyR]

When was the last time some meaningful input about the *actual* circumstances was made in this thread?

[Antelope Dog]

Let's see if I got this rioght...

 

Cacher has an unfindable cache in a semi remote location. It has a lot of DNF's

A reviewer see this, disables the cache and asks the cacher to check on it. (as I understand it, some reviewers put these notifications on a watch list)

Moments later, the cacher enables the cache and says "I checked on it and it is there".

The reviewer archives the listing and says they don't think the cache is there.

The cacher says they threw away the cache.

The cacher then e-mails appeals about the situation.

Appeals backs up the reviewer.

 

It would seem to me that the reviewer called the bluff. Just my view.

 

Now.. say you had an 11 year old and you saw their room was a mess. You came out to the living room and told them to clean it up and don't forget to vacuum. You go out to the back yard and join your friends that are visiting. Two minutes (really two minutes) later they came out and asked to go to the skateboard park. You remind them that they need to clean their room. They say that it is clean, and you tell them you don't think so. Are you saying your kid is a liar in front of friends? Calling his bluff? Maybe - but in my eyes the better description is "childish behavior".

[CoyoteRed]

Now.. say you had an 11 year old and you saw their room was a mess. You came out to the living room and told them to clean it up and don't forget to vacuum. You go out to the back yard and join your friends that are visiting. Two minutes (really two minutes) later they came out and asked to go to the skateboard park. You remind them that they need to clean their room. They say that it is clean, and you tell them you don't think so. Are you saying your kid is a liar in front of friends? Calling his bluff? Maybe - but in my eyes the better description is "childish behavior".

Was there a remote possibility that your child could have cleaned his room? Has your child ever lied to you before? Has you child ever had a messy room before?

 

A better analogy would be your daughter comes to you and says your son has a messy room. Your son has never had a history of ever having a messy room, but you ask him to go check on his room to see if it is messy. Two minutes later his responds that his room is not messy. Do you call him a liar in front your friends and ground him?

[+ArcherDragoon]

What has been done...well...is done...

 

I don't need "proof" or an explanation about why Groundspeak and all those involved took the actions they took. I have no reason to believe this all took place out of a conspiracy. Though it has not been said, I am fine with accepting that there was/is something else that happened that we shall not know about…clearly, they (Groundspeak and associated people) had information above and beyond what has been laid out here.

 

What has been getting to me is some people asking (demanding) that Nomex (the so called “Rogue Reviewer”) is being asked to step down or some people asking (again, demanding) that s/he be reprimanded (even publicly)…It seemed clear to me that given what was stated by Groundspeak (to the extent that they felt was allowed) that Nomex did not act without Groundspeak’s knowledge (nor without Groundspeak’s direction)…

 

Again…what has been done is done…time to move on…either go find some caches or hang out in off-topic and count some cheese…either is a better alternative than what is repeatedly going around in circles in this thread…

[+Don_J]

What has been done...well...is done...

 

I don't need "proof" or an explanation about why Groundspeak and all those involved took the actions they took. I have no reason to believe this all took place out of a conspiracy. Though it has not been said, I am fine with accepting that there was/is something else that happened that we shall not know about…clearly, they (Groundspeak and associated people) had information above and beyond what has been laid out here.

 

What has been getting to me is some people asking (demanding) that Nomex (the so called “Rogue Reviewer”) is being asked to step down or some people asking (again, demanding) that s/he be reprimanded (even publicly)…It seemed clear to me that given what was stated by Groundspeak (to the extent that they felt was allowed) that Nomex did not act without Groundspeak’s knowledge (nor without Groundspeak’s direction)…

 

Again…what has been done is done…time to move on…either go find some caches or hang out in off-topic and count some cheese…either is a better alternative than what is repeatedly going around in circles in this thread…

 

In hindsight, perhaps one of the paid lackeys should have taken the initiative and handled the original issue, instead of putting one of their volunteers in the hot seat. At least they picked a guy that is fire resistant.

[Clan Riffster]

Why clarify the policies or procedures any more than they already are? They seem pretty black/white to me.

Because an agent of Groundspeak is inventing guidelines to suit the agenda of the day? When you submitted your puzzle cache, I presume you read the guidelines. Did you read anything in there that suggests that if a cache is not found, it will be disabled pending a check? If so, perhaps I need to read them again, as I must have missed it. I have no problem with reviewers who enforce the guidelines. That's there job. What I do have an issue with is when a reviewer develops a particular agenda, (in this case, archiving a cache regardless of the compliance of the owner), then creates a guideline out of thin air to justify his actions.

 

They have already explained that it is a "sensitive situation."

As part of the process of language, we all interpret what we read and hear, filtering it through our past experiences. I am every bit as guilty of this as anyone. When I hear some entity discuss a potentially embarrassing incident using "Sorry. This is a sensitive situation", I see that as a carefully contrived non-response. It tells us nothing, while satisfying the pundits who are quick to support the cookie crumb covered Friar.

 

You have accepted the "sensitive situation" response.

I respect your decision.

Respect is not necessarily synonymous with concur.

 

It's like this thread. It keeps going and going and.....

Why does my post say Ringbone Cpl. Klinger?

 

At least they picked a guy that is fire resistant.

Your post made me realize that I may have done Nomex a disservice. I keep using a masculine pronoun when discussing him, but with that bulky suit he has in his avatar, he, might very well be a she. If so, I apologize for my gender assumption.

[Mushtang]

A better analogy would be your daughter comes to you and says your son has a messy room. Your son has never had a history of ever having a messy room, but you ask him to go check on his room to see if it is messy. Two minutes later his responds that his room is not messy. Do you call him a liar in front your friends and ground him?

And then what would you do if you had seen with your own eyes that it WAS messy (or otherwise had proof) and busted him for lying, and told him to go clean it?

 

THEN, all your neighbors on the street kept talking about what you'd done and demanded that you tell them the details, but you felt it was really none of their business. They'd come up with all sorts of reasons that you couldn't possibly know that the room was dirty and how horrible you were to tell him to go clean his room again. What would you say if they kept saying that you owe them an explanation and you felt it should remain between you and your son?

[+NanCycle]

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.

 

Thanks, Clan Riffster, for a complete and succinct summary of the situation; I absolutely agree with every word.

 

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. . . .

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

Thanks to TripCyclone for expressing my sentiments exactly.

[Clan Riffster]

What would you say if they kept saying that you owe them an explanation and you felt it should remain between you and your son?

If my daughter completed what I thought would be a two hour task, (cleaning her room), in two minutes, I would doubt that she did her job properly. My neighbors would not be aware of my doubt, unless they were psychic. I would check her work, to see if it was done. I would not call her integrity into dispute, in front of neighbors, simply because I was too lazy to walk 30' to verify her claim. If I were so crass that I actually did question her claim publicly, humiliating her in front of the neighbors, and determined that she had told the truth, I would ask her to join me with the neighbors, at which time I would explain my actions, and publicly apologize for embarrassing her. If, in that example, I found out she was lying, I would explain to my neighbors what had occurred, as I had already made our personal business public.

 

I'm not suggesting this is the right way, or the only way, but it's my way.

[Dinoprophet]

A better analogy would be your daughter comes to you and says your son has a messy room. Your son has never had a history of ever having a messy room, but you ask him to go check on his room to see if it is messy. Two minutes later his responds that his room is not messy. Do you call him a liar in front your friends and ground him?

And then what would you do if you had seen with your own eyes that it WAS messy (or otherwise had proof) and busted him for lying, and told him to go clean it?

 

THEN, all your neighbors on the street kept talking about what you'd done and demanded that you tell them the details, but you felt it was really none of their business. They'd come up with all sorts of reasons that you couldn't possibly know that the room was dirty and how horrible you were to tell him to go clean his room again. What would you say if they kept saying that you owe them an explanation and you felt it should remain between you and your son?

Well, that's a complete disintegration of the analogy. First, no one saw with their own eyes that the cache didn't exist. And the only proof I can imagine is an admission by SF. Second, I have no power over my neighbors, thus how I discipline my kid has no bearing on them.

[knowschad]

And then what would you do if you had seen with your own eyes that it WAS messy (or otherwise had proof) and busted him for lying, and told him to go clean it?

Who saw with their own eyes that this cache was indeed never there? For that matter, how can anyone see with their own eyes something that isn't there?

[+ChileHead]

With the tens of thousands (or more) of caches published each year, the fact that so few caches cause concerns such as this says that something is working right.

[Dinoprophet]

With the tens of thousands (or more) of caches published each year, the fact that so few caches cause concerns such as this says that something is working right.

I think everyone would agree. Nearly all cache archivals are completely understandable.

[+johngie]

I live in the CO's area, and frankley, none of this surprises me. Speaking from abusive and irrational experiences I have been on the recieving end of with the CO, I have no doubt GC acted properly, and I am impressed that they have not reversed their position after 15 pages. But enough of this insanity....let's get back to why we are here....trails, family, friends, fun and swag!

Interesting that you're pointing out "abusive and irrational," but not saying that SF lists caches that aren't there. I was just about to reply to another local above when I read this post. Two locals. Two different experiences.

 

Ok Who-dey is only giving half the story here. The behavior Who-dey is talking about was in response to false accusations made by Who-dey in numerous forums on this site that could of resulted in a major negative consequence for another cacher (me) with their employer. So if SF behavior was "abusive and irrational", he was not completely at fault.

 

Now in response to ST caches existing. First of all, let me say that most cachers in this area know that when you go after a SF, you probably will be looking for awhile. There have been a few times where I have been stumped by some of his caches, like many other cachers have. There have been times when I have called SF to see if I get a hint out of him. Instead of a hint over the phone, he has shown up and given me hints while standing there watching and I eventually made the find. On other SF caches that I did not find or go look for, other cachers that I know have found them. I have never heard that his caches did not exist.

 

Now for the cache in question. I believe that the cache existed. SF has never given me a reason to doubt him or to believe that one of his caches was never really there.

[+Sagefox]

.....The question is still "Why won't the reviewers in question answer with their side of the story? Are they hiding something?

...Besides the question is a dead issue as long long ago Groundspeak invoked privacy as the reason they will not openly discuss it.

 

Why isn't this perfectly clear to people? Do they think that, just this one time, because a topic runs 16 pages, that GS should make an exception to their policy?

[CoyoteRed]

And then what would you do if you had seen with your own eyes that it WAS messy (or otherwise had proof) and busted him for lying, and told him to go clean it?

The problem is I never go and check the room. I've never known him to lie or have a messy room. I'm relying on information from him that I have no reason to doubt. Now, I have to look at the reason my daughter may have told a fib. Did he get the last piece of pie at dinner? Is she mad that he gets all of the attention because he's some sort of goody two shoes? Would she be jealous of something?

 

If I did have proof of a messy room and the neighbors wanted to know why he was grounded, I'd tell them. He had a messy room and then lied about it. Simple.

 

I might have something to hide if I grounded him for having a messy room without having proof. I might be embarrassed in telling my neighbors why I grounded him based on no proof especially if I knew they knew him to have never lied or have a messy room. I might be too embarrassed to tell them if I believed my daughter over him. This might be where I'd be telling them to mind their own business.

[+Mopar]

Why isn't this perfectly clear to people? Do they think that, just this one time, because a topic runs 16 pages, that GS should make an exception to their policy?

No, but when it reaches 20 pages they should.

[+Mudfrog]

What would you say if they kept saying that you owe them an explanation and you felt it should remain between you and your son?

If my daughter completed what I thought would be a two hour task, (cleaning her room), in two minutes, I would doubt that she did her job properly. My neighbors would not be aware of my doubt, unless they were psychic. I would check her work, to see if it was done. I would not call her integrity into dispute, in front of neighbors, simply because I was too lazy to walk 30' to verify her claim. If I were so crass that I actually did question her claim publicly, humiliating her in front of the neighbors, and determined that she had told the truth, I would ask her to join me with the neighbors, at which time I would explain my actions, and publicly apologize for embarrassing her. If, in that example, I found out she was lying, I would explain to my neighbors what had occurred, as I had already made our personal business public.

 

I'm not suggesting this is the right way, or the only way, but it's my way.

 

A messy room analogy doesn't fit what's going on here. The messy room really has nothing to do with anyone outside the family's house.

 

This, on the otherhand, is something that can potentially affect many. It's a cache that was put into place with the thought that anyone in the world could search for and find. The cache went public at the time it was published, thereby making it the business of those interested. I'm not much on conspiracy theories and i certainly don't think there is one going on here. I am also 99.9% sure that there is more to this than we know. Still, i feel that an explanation, doesn't have to have to be lengthy or give out private details, is warranted.

[Mushtang]

And then what would you do if you had seen with your own eyes that it WAS messy (or otherwise had proof) and busted him for lying, and told him to go clean it?

Who saw with their own eyes that this cache was indeed never there? For that matter, how can anyone see with their own eyes something that isn't there?

You didn't edit out the stuff I had in parenthesis, but you totally ignored it. I'm not at all suggesting that any reviewer went to hunt for the cache and based on not being able to find it determined that it wasn't there. I'm asking what IF they did have proof, but not saying what that proof might be.

[Mushtang]

And then what would you do if you had seen with your own eyes that it WAS messy (or otherwise had proof) and busted him for lying, and told him to go clean it?

The problem is I never go and check the room. I've never known him to lie or have a messy room. I'm relying on information from him that I have no reason to doubt. Now, I have to look at the reason my daughter may have told a fib. Did he get the last piece of pie at dinner? Is she mad that he gets all of the attention because he's some sort of goody two shoes? Would she be jealous of something?

 

If I did have proof of a messy room and the neighbors wanted to know why he was grounded, I'd tell them. He had a messy room and then lied about it. Simple.

 

I might have something to hide if I grounded him for having a messy room without having proof. I might be embarrassed in telling my neighbors why I grounded him based on no proof especially if I knew they knew him to have never lied or have a messy room. I might be too embarrassed to tell them if I believed my daughter over him. This might be where I'd be telling them to mind their own business.

And you totally edited out the part where I said you thought it was none of your neighbors business.

 

Forget the cleaning of the room, just tell me what you'd think if one of your customers to your online store thought they needed to know details about your profits based on partial information they had about a transaction with another customer? I really don't think you'd be willing to open up your books or even discuss a private transaction with me if I felt you'd done something wrong when you sold Clan Riffster one of your micro cache containers. You'd tell me it's none of my business, IF you responded to me at all.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Mushtang

[knowschad]

Now for the cache in question. I believe that the cache existed. SF has never given me a reason to doubt him or to believe that one of his caches was never really there.

I'm glad to hear that.

 

Being one that has a little bit of experience making molds and castings, early on in this thread I emailed SF asking for details of how he made this supposed cache. I was clear in my email to him that my intention was not to entrap him, but simply for my own curiousity.

 

With very little delay, I received a very elaborate reply, and will say that, to my own satisfaction, if he did not make the casting that he says this cache was, at the very least, he understood the process and materials neccessary. True, that in itself does not prove the cache ever existed, but I do find it to be strong evidence, and your post of support only strengthens my conviction that there was indeed a cache to be found.

[knowschad]

You'd tell me it's none of my business, IF you responded to me at all.

Why on earth are some of you wasting so much time trying to point out to others that they are wasting their time by trying to get Groundspeak to break their slience, anyway? Just ignore us, for cryin' out loud! Let us waste our time. Its our time, after all, and we can waste it in any way we want to! (so can you, I guess, but why worry about us so much?)

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Why on earth are some of you wasting so much time trying to point out to others that they are wasting their time by trying to get Groundspeak to break their slience, anyway? Just ignore us, for cryin' out loud! Let us waste our time. Its our time, after all, and we can waste it in any way we want to! (so can you, I guess, but why worry about us so much?)

Why on earth are some of you wasting so much time trying to point out to others that they are wasting their time by trying to get this silly thread to go away, anyway? Just ignore us, for cryin' out loud! Let us waste our time. Its our time, after all, and we can waste it in any way we want to! (so can you, I guess, but why worry about us so much?)

[Mushtang]

You'd tell me it's none of my business, IF you responded to me at all.

Why on earth are some of you wasting so much time trying to point out to others that they are wasting their time by trying to get Groundspeak to break their slience, anyway? Just ignore us, for cryin' out loud! Let us waste our time. Its our time, after all, and we can waste it in any way we want to! (so can you, I guess, but why worry about us so much?)

Because it's the forums I guess. We're here to discuss the situation just like you are.

 

I didn't realize you were actively trying to change Groundspeak's mind about what they're not telling you by discussing it here. I thought you were just discussing that your opinions on what they should do and giving your reasons. Wouldn't it be more effective to email them and ask, and telling them in the email why you thought they should tell their side of the story?

 

Maybe not. Maybe your way will work.

 

And for the record, I'm not trying to change your mind about asking for details, but (as you said) just pointing out that I doubt you'll be successful.

[Dinoprophet]

And then what would you do if you had seen with your own eyes that it WAS messy (or otherwise had proof) and busted him for lying, and told him to go clean it?

The problem is I never go and check the room. I've never known him to lie or have a messy room. I'm relying on information from him that I have no reason to doubt. Now, I have to look at the reason my daughter may have told a fib. Did he get the last piece of pie at dinner? Is she mad that he gets all of the attention because he's some sort of goody two shoes? Would she be jealous of something?

 

If I did have proof of a messy room and the neighbors wanted to know why he was grounded, I'd tell them. He had a messy room and then lied about it. Simple.

 

I might have something to hide if I grounded him for having a messy room without having proof. I might be embarrassed in telling my neighbors why I grounded him based on no proof especially if I knew they knew him to have never lied or have a messy room. I might be too embarrassed to tell them if I believed my daughter over him. This might be where I'd be telling them to mind their own business.

And you totally edited out the part where I said you thought it was none of your neighbors business.

 

Forget the cleaning of the room, just tell me what you'd think if one of your customers to your online store thought they needed to know details about your profits based on partial information they had about a transaction with another customer? I really don't think you'd be willing to open up your books or even discuss a private transaction with me if I felt you'd done something wrong when you sold Clan Riffster one of your micro cache containers. You'd tell me it's none of my business, IF you responded to me at all.

Really? If you were running a business and a customer said to you, "Someone told me they got bad service from you, is that right?" and you knew the customer was in the wrong, you wouldn't say so?

 

Why on earth are some of you wasting so much time trying to point out to others that they are wasting their time by trying to get Groundspeak to break their slience, anyway? Just ignore us, for cryin' out loud! Let us waste our time. Its our time, after all, and we can waste it in any way we want to! (so can you, I guess, but why worry about us so much?)

Why on earth are some of you wasting so much time trying to point out to others that they are wasting their time by trying to get this silly thread to go away, anyway? Just ignore us, for cryin' out loud! Let us waste our time. Its our time, after all, and we can waste it in any way we want to! (so can you, I guess, but why worry about us so much?)

Honestly, we're only refuting points now. It keeps getting bumped by some new analogy or list of "things we know".

Edited November 19, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+bittsen]

If someone can prove that SF faked a cache placement, please speak up now.

If you cannot prove that SF faked a cache placement, please, remain silent or speak up against the practice of archiving hard-to-find caches.

[Clan Riffster]

I really don't think you'd be willing to open up your books or even discuss a private transaction with me if I felt you'd done something wrong when you sold Clan Riffster one of your micro cache containers. You'd tell me it's none of my business, IF you responded to me at all.

I can't speak for Coyote Red, nor do I own my own business, so my response may not carry much weight. With that in mind, if one customer approached me, accusing me of dealing falsely with another customer, I would immediately offer full disclosure, and if possible, involve the original party in the discussion, so that everyone would be able to walk away knowing that I, as a business person, did everything in my power to resolve any dispute.

 

How you handle your hypothetical small business is entirely up to you.

 

If you, as an agent of your business, start making public slanders against other customers, I would, at the very least, post my opinion about your poor business practices on your business' forum. I believe that bad behavior should be confronted, as much as possible/practical, lest it leads to further bad behavior.

 

A messy room analogy doesn't fit what's going on here.

Yeah, I know. On an analogy comparison scale I'd give it about a 2 out of 10.

But since I didn't create the analogy, I had to work with what was available.

[+quadsinthemudd]

Ok I googled my GC name just see were it popped up at.... and I found this

 

http://www.indianageocaching.com/viewtopic...f=90&t=1524

 

about this cache

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

 

WOW! Trashing me to his friends a events and on forus when he doesnt even know me! First I live in SE Washington State and we have a bunch of Blue Herrings around here

 

so how was I to know what a Red Herring is to someone in Indiana. Until this I didnt know it meant a decoy. Second he assumed I complained to his/my/? reviewer to get it axed? All I did was change my find to a note and move on. So why am I posting it here you ask? Well it made me think of this thread and what was going on with this cache here. The whole point of this thread is about the actions of a "Rogue Reviewer". But should it be about the actions of the CO? First I dont like how the situation was handled by GS and the reviewer from what I have read.....but...... I also think the CO is alot to blame for this. It looks to me IMAO that he has created a reputation with the reviewers and a heavy hand was delt to his cache because of it. Was the cache there? Who cares not the point. Could the reviewers believe him? I dont think so. If you dont believe me go back and read all of SF/TDE post on this thread not exactly a guy to stick to what he says, also just IMAO. So what TDE and Wapahani(the guy who slammed me) have in common is that they run thier mouth way to nuch withot proof or thought. SF/TDE now back to SF?.....you made your bed enjoy it.

 

Groundspeak I would love to know the procedure for this type of archiving. And I think if you were to answr that there would be an end to this thread and we could all sleep well at night. Instead of reading this thread for hours and hours and hours!

[knowschad]

You'd tell me it's none of my business, IF you responded to me at all.

Why on earth are some of you wasting so much time trying to point out to others that they are wasting their time by trying to get Groundspeak to break their slience, anyway? Just ignore us, for cryin' out loud! Let us waste our time. Its our time, after all, and we can waste it in any way we want to! (so can you, I guess, but why worry about us so much?)

 

Because it's the forums I guess. We're here to discuss the situation just like you are.

Great! Then let me politely ask you to please... discuss the situation. As it is, you are only discussing our discussion of the situation. That does nothing but increase the noise level without adding to the signal (and yes, some of us do believe there is a signal here).

[+StarBrand]

If someone can prove that SF faked a cache placement, please speak up now.

If you cannot prove that SF faked a cache placement, please, remain silent or speak up against the practice of archiving hard-to-find caches.

Faith my friend - faith is all I have.

 

Faith that the reviewers are good decent people and the folks up at HQ act in only a rational manner when it comes to managing the reviewers.

 

Because of that faith in them - I believe this decision was the right thing to do - whatever the backstory may be.

 

Not enough for you - but I take a lot in life on faith and it has served me well.

[+Sileny Jizda]

What I see here is someone on the side of pushing the button messed up and messed up big. For those that think the powers that be are infallible, perfect, and unbiased I could think of a few bridges for sale if your interested. In our area alone I know of several instances when caches are published with wording that other cachers in the area are not allowed to use. Invoking the 'privacy' policy only gives them a wall to stand behind away from answering any questions on the matter. I have no doubt the cache was there. We have hard caches here that have not been found or found very little. It doesn't mean they don't exist it only means I don't have the skill to locate them. This is something that should also be taken into consideration when archiving another cache so someone else can toss out another film can or button nano.

[+bittsen]

If someone can prove that SF faked a cache placement, please speak up now.

If you cannot prove that SF faked a cache placement, please, remain silent or speak up against the practice of archiving hard-to-find caches.

Faith my friend - faith is all I have.

 

Faith that the reviewers are good decent people and the folks up at HQ act in only a rational manner when it comes to managing the reviewers.

 

Because of that faith in them - I believe this decision was the right thing to do - whatever the backstory may be.

 

Not enough for you - but I take a lot in life on faith and it has served me well.

 

Faith is all we have? Well I have faith that we are being kept in the dark for a reason that will not make the caching community happy.

 

Yes, faith!

[+HockeyPuck]

If my daughter completed what I thought would be a two hour task, (cleaning her room), in two minutes, I would doubt that she did her job properly. My neighbors would not be aware of my doubt, unless they were psychic. I would check her work, to see if it was done. I would not call her integrity into dispute, in front of neighbors, simply because I was too lazy to walk 30' to verify her claim. If I were so crass that I actually did question her claim publicly, humiliating her in front of the neighbors, and determined that she had told the truth, I would ask her to join me with the neighbors, at which time I would explain my actions, and publicly apologize for embarrassing her. If, in that example, I found out she was lying, I would explain to my neighbors what had occurred, as I had already made our personal business public.

 

I'm not suggesting this is the right way, or the only way, but it's my way.

 

Another analogy... Lets make the assumption that you suggested your daughter clean her room.. instead of her quick 'in 2 minutes' reply lets presume she immediately replied, "I just finished cleaning my room".

 

Perhaps you should explain to the psychic meddling neighbors that your daughter's reply may have been a bit hasty and her 'trust me Dad, I have no evidence but I just cleaned it response' needs more proof than the adamant excuses provided.

[Dinoprophet]

If my daughter completed what I thought would be a two hour task, (cleaning her room), in two minutes, I would doubt that she did her job properly. My neighbors would not be aware of my doubt, unless they were psychic. I would check her work, to see if it was done. I would not call her integrity into dispute, in front of neighbors, simply because I was too lazy to walk 30' to verify her claim. If I were so crass that I actually did question her claim publicly, humiliating her in front of the neighbors, and determined that she had told the truth, I would ask her to join me with the neighbors, at which time I would explain my actions, and publicly apologize for embarrassing her. If, in that example, I found out she was lying, I would explain to my neighbors what had occurred, as I had already made our personal business public.

 

I'm not suggesting this is the right way, or the only way, but it's my way.

 

Another analogy... Lets make the assumption that you suggested your daughter clean her room.. instead of her quick 'in 2 minutes' reply lets presume she immediately replied, "I just finished cleaning my room".

Why?! What does this have to do with the case at hand? Where is this aspect of immediacy coming from? These analogies are ridiculous and add nothing as they can be twisted and contrived to support any argument.

 

Perhaps you should explain to the psychic meddling neighbors that your daughter's reply may have been a bit hasty and her 'trust me Dad, I have no evidence but I just cleaned it response' needs more proof than the adamant excuses provided.

Please see my post above about how the neighbors also do not apply to the analogy.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[CoyoteRed]

Really? If you were running a business and a customer said to you, "Someone told me they got bad service from you, is that right?" and you knew the customer was in the wrong, you wouldn't say so?

Exactly.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Really? If you were running a business and a customer said to you, "Someone told me they got bad service from you, is that right?" and you knew the customer was in the wrong, you wouldn't say so?

Exactly.

Exactly. I wouldn't say so!

 

Before retiring in 2003 I owned a consulting business for 28 years and never advertised at all... all of our clients came to us by word of mouth recommendation. I would never set out to prove a client was wrong to another or prospective client... I would have lost the respect, referrals and business of both of them.

[+bittsen]

Really? If you were running a business and a customer said to you, "Someone told me they got bad service from you, is that right?" and you knew the customer was in the wrong, you wouldn't say so?

Exactly.

Exactly. I wouldn't say so!

 

Before retiring in 2003 I owned a consulting business for 28 years and never advertised at all... all of our clients came to us by word of mouth recommendation. I would never set out to prove a client was wrong to another or prospective client... I would have lost the respect, referrals and business of both of them.

 

In the time you had this consulting business, did you ever publicly trash another customer with no explanation?

[Mushtang]

Really? If you were running a business and a customer said to you, "Someone told me they got bad service from you, is that right?" and you knew the customer was in the wrong, you wouldn't say so?

That's a good point. There's a balance between telling your customers whatever they ask to keep them happy and paying (which would get into the details of your business you didn't want to share) and not telling them enough to keep them happy (in order to protect the details of your business).

 

For instance, Coyotered might be willing to tell me that one of his customers accidentally got overcharged but as soon as he was aware of it he refunded the difference. But if that wasn't enough detail for me and I demanded to know how much he charged, what other items the person and bought and how much they paid for each item, and how much CR himself had paid for his inventory, he'd tell me (if he even responded) that I didn't need to know any of those things, but to trust him that there was not a problem anymore.

 

This was not intended to be a perfect analogy to what happened with GS, but an example of a business decision that was somewhat less than full disclosure of a situation with any other customer that asked (or demanded) to know details.

 

I'm sure TPTB considered several options on what to do, picked the one they thought best, and don't feel that it's necessary to explain why they did what they did just to satisfy the curiosity some very vocal people in the forums.

[+tozainamboku]

What I see here is someone on the side of pushing the button messed up and messed up big. For those that think the powers that be are infallible, perfect, and unbiased I could think of a few bridges for sale if your interested. In our area alone I know of several instances when caches are published with wording that other cachers in the area are not allowed to use. Invoking the 'privacy' policy only gives them a wall to stand behind away from answering any questions on the matter. I have no doubt the cache was there. We have hard caches here that have not been found or found very little. It doesn't mean they don't exist it only means I don't have the skill to locate them. This is something that should also be taken into consideration when archiving another cache so someone else can toss out another film can or button nano.

Had the reviewer messed up TPTB would have overruled him and unarchived the caches. That is in fact what I expected would happen when this tread first appeared. However, it appears that either Groundspeak had independent evidence that the cache didn't exist or didn't like the way the CO responded to the initial disabling and later to the archiving. It even looks like there is a possibility that the cache owner went and removed the cache before the appeal was even denied.

 

Reviewers don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt before archiving a cache. This is not a court. They don't even need a preponderance of evidence. Sometimes they take the word of as few one person agains the cache owner's. This typically shows up when someone posts that a cache is in a no trespassing area or in some other area where caches are banned, or if someone claiming to be a property owner contacts Geocaching.com to say the cache is on their property without permission, the cache will be immediately archived. It then becomes up to the cache owner to prove otherwise and get the cache reinstated. The reviewers don't see archiving as a death penalty. They will happily unarchive a cache if it is later shown to be in compliance with guidelines.

 

The question may be why Nomex went ahead and archived the cache even though the owner appeared to have complied with the request in the disable note to do a maintenance visit. It may very well be this maintenance visit where TPTB have evidence the CO lied. Did the visit occur in a unreasonably short time after the cache was disabled? Was the owner logging other caches on the other side of the state at the time he claims to have visited his cache? We don't know. TPTB may very well not have any idea whether or not the cache existed, but the cache owner didn't seem to want to help them out in finding out the cache was indeed there. He seemed to do the minimum he thought was required and even then in a way that made someone doubt he had even done that much. Perhaps the reviewer's notes was confusing since it implied that all that was needed was a check on whether the cache was still there when in fact that reviewer was looking for proof that there was indeed a cache.

 

For those who are upset that a review appears to be able to post a note that implies he thinks the caches owner is lying are reading too much into it. First of all, the reviewer may have some other evidence the cache owner is lying - perhaps not about the existence of the cache but about something else, like whether he actually did visit the cache to verify it's existence. Or perhaps there is a record of the cache owner be less than fully honest in his dealings with reviewers. Reviewers could write notes that are carefully worded to say that it is their belief there has been no cache to find, rather than just saying "there has been no cache to find" but the pattern of writing short concise notes rather than notes using lots of wiggle words has probably turned out to me more effective in getting people to comply with guidelines.

 

For those who are upset that this particular difficult hide was archived before anyone was able to find it, this seems to be as much the fault of the CO as the reviewer. The CO could have contacted the reviewer and discussed what was needed to prove there was a cache. Instead the CO seemed to have an attitude that he was going to be treated unfairly no matter what he did and gave up early on his appeal by removing and destroying the cache himself. The best we can hope for is that this incident is taken as a lesson by other cache owners as well as by the Groundspeak and the reviewers as a reason for good communication between the cache owner and the reviewer to resolve cache issues.

 

For those who are upset that many DNFs on a cache that has never been found may flag it as not being there and subject to archiving, this doesn't seem to be the case. DNFs might be one of several things that reviewers are likely to look at. For example, if you have a 1/1 with lots of finds on it and all of sudden you start to get nothing but DNFs, reviewers are going to ask for cache owners to check on the cache and post that they have done so. Many caches are currently being archived because the cache owners don't respond promptly to such request. Nobody seems to complain when these caches are archived. The only difference here seems to be that cache owner did respond promptly by posting that he checked the cache. But he may have responded too promptly or the reviewer may have seen other reasons to doubt that the maintenance visit was ever made. If cachers are honest with the reviewers and ask just what is expected when the reviewer says the cache may need maintenance, I don't think that difficult caches would be archived just because they have never been found. This is one area where a Groundspeak lackey could post, just to clarify that there is no guideline saying difficult caches will be archived if they never get found.

[+geodarts]

it appears that either Groundspeak had independent evidence that the cache didn't exist or didn't like the way the CO responded to the initial disabling and later to the archiving.

 

I don't think anyone could prove a negative, that a cache is not there. But neither do I think that in this situation you could even make a reasonable guess without bringing the specific concerns to a CO and asking the appropriate questions - particularly as part of the investigation that Groundspeak conducted on the owner's appeal.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Erickson

[+KBI]

If someone can prove that SF faked a cache placement, please speak up now.

If you cannot prove that SF faked a cache placement, please, remain silent or speak up against the practice of archiving hard-to-find caches.

Thank you for clarifying who is allowed to express their opinion and who isn't.

 

Dissent must be silenced!!

[+bittsen]

Had the reviewer messed up TPTB would have overruled him and unarchived the caches. That is in fact what I expected would happen when this tread first appeared. However, it appears that either Groundspeak had independent evidence that the cache didn't exist or didn't like the way the CO responded to the initial disabling and later to the archiving. It even looks like there is a possibility that the cache owner went and removed the cache before the appeal was even denied.

 

What previous example would lead you to that conclusion?

 

I have dealt with online based companies/communities on a few occasions. I was part of a fiasco where TPTB refused to do the right thing and continued to allow a rogue (to keep in tone with the title of the thread) moderator to do an injustice to one of the members of the online community. He was allowed his reign and ultimately, the site was brought down.

Granted, the "community" was not as large as geocaching, but it is an example that makes my point.

TPTB won't always "do the right thing" so don't always count on it. Whether or not they did the right thing in this case has yet to be known but one thing we know for sure is that it appears that TPTB don't feel a need to quell the suspicions of the community. One can only speculate why but I am almost certain the "privacy" issue has nothing to do with it. The "privacy" statement is akin to when the auto mechanic tells you that he can't let you into his shop for "insurance" reasons. And, in case you didn't know, the "insurance reasons" are almost always bogus.

[+KBI]

Had the reviewer messed up TPTB would have overruled him and unarchived the caches. That is in fact what I expected would happen when this tread first appeared. However, it appears that either Groundspeak had independent evidence that the cache didn't exist or didn't like the way the CO responded to the initial disabling and later to the archiving. It even looks like there is a possibility that the cache owner went and removed the cache before the appeal was even denied.

What previous example would lead you to that conclusion?

You mean other than this post?

 

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

[GOF and Bacall]

Had the reviewer messed up TPTB would have overruled him and unarchived the caches. That is in fact what I expected would happen when this tread first appeared. However, it appears that either Groundspeak had independent evidence that the cache didn't exist or didn't like the way the CO responded to the initial disabling and later to the archiving. It even looks like there is a possibility that the cache owner went and removed the cache before the appeal was even denied.

What previous example would lead you to that conclusion?

You mean other than this post?

 

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

That certainly is an example of the idea. However not an example of an actual action. Dig deeper. I am sure that there is an example, or two.