Jump to content

Rogue Reviewer?


Recommended Posts

... did you ever publicly trash another customer with no explanation?

Nope.

 

Look, I agree that something took place. We don't know what. We probably never will. Based on my personal experience I believe Groundspeak and its body of volunteer Reviewers to be good and well-meaning. No, they are not infallible, but I believe that overall they do way more good than harm. Whatever the facts of this issue are I still believe that GS et al are looking out for the game's best interest as well as the corporate good.

 

Further, I am aware that life's not fair. We don't always get what we want. I think it's perfectly clear by now the Groundspeak has chosen to ignore this thread. That being the case all the wailing in the world won't make it any different. Whatever happened happened, let's get over it and move on. :laughing:

 

Lastly, he who has the gold makes the rules! :)

Link to post

... did you ever publicly trash another customer with no explanation?

Nope.

 

Look, I agree that something took place. We don't know what. We probably never will. Based on my personal experience I believe Groundspeak and its body of volunteer Reviewers to be good and well-meaning. No, they are not infallible, but I believe that overall they do way more good than harm. Whatever the facts of this issue are I still believe that GS et al are looking out for the game's best interest as well as the corporate good.

 

Further, I am aware that life's not fair. We don't always get what we want. I think it's perfectly clear by now the Groundspeak has chosen to ignore this thread. That being the case all the wailing in the world won't make it any different. Whatever happened happened, let's get over it and move on. :laughing:

 

Lastly, he who has the gold makes the rules! :)

 

But then think of how dead the forum would be right now. This is obviously the hottest topic and you want it to die? I bet thats what TPTB want also.

Link to post
Reviewers don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt before archiving a cache.

That is true. Reviewers could, conceivably, act in a heavy handed, bullying manner, showing favoritism to their friends, while offering only angst to those they dislike. "You bought me a beer at the last event? Sure I'll publish your cache that is too close to that other one. No problem. You were harsh in your criticism of my player account's film can hide? I'm gonna make you jump through all kinds of hoops". Unlikely in the extreme, but technically possible. The reviewers have been tasked with a very challenging job, and they've been given certain authority to act as agents, in Groundspeak's name. That authority includes, (among other things), archiving caches which have been shown to be in non-compliance with the guidelines. Most of us in here are not privy to what occurs behind the scenes when Groundspeak makes someone a reviewer, so we can only speculate about the degree of authority they are given.

 

If memory serves, one participant in this thread used to be a reviewer.

 

Ed, (TheAlabamaRambler), are reviewers allowed to invent guidelines at whim?

 

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.

True. Had this been a location issue, this thread would have died out half way down the first page. But of course, you know it has absolutely nothing to do with no trespassing areas, banned areas or private property, which makes your whole paragraph irrelevant to this issue.

 

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.

Why would it even occur to the CO to think he needed to provide proof of the cache's existence? If a reviewer posted a note on one of my caches, asking that I check on it, I am going to assume that the reviewer is at least somewhat competent in conversing in English, and I will act on the request they made, not try to dream up other potential problems that the reviewer deliberately opted not to mention. Stating that the CO did "the minimum" is kind of belittling, when in fact, (according to his log), he did every single thing he was asked to do, and he did it in a timely manner. Your claim that the reviewer note was confusing is silly. If I say "Check your cache", how could anybody be confused about my message? Nomex didn't imply that all the CO should do was check his cache. Nomex stated that. Loud and clear. The negative editing job that Nomex did with his archival note demonstrates that he is conversant in the language of the CO. If he wanted proof, he should have asked for proof. Something to the effect of, "Sir, I am temporarily disabling this cache, as I have received information that leads me to believe it may not be in place. Please contact me through my profile so we can discuss the degree of proof I feel is necessary to re-enable the listing." How hard is that? :laughing: There was nothing in Nomex's note which would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that he wanted anything more than a maintenance visit.

 

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Allowing agents of your company to publicly humiliate your customers is a public relations nightmare. For some reason, you've decided that it's perfectly acceptable for a reviewer to publicly call a cache owner a liar. I cannot concur with your philosophy, though I respect your right to your own beliefs. While you might feel that truth is just an abstract concept, for some of us it is the driving force behind how we interact with the rest of society.

 

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.

From my vantage point, it appears that the cache owner's attitude was right on the money, as evidenced by what was posted on the cache page. His cache was disabled due to a non-existent guideline. Then he was asked to check on his cache. According to the cache page, he did exactly what was asked of him, and did it in a timely manner. Then his cache was archived, and he was called a liar. Had I been treated that way, I don't think I would be able to maintain my faith in the system. Once again you bring up the point that the CO could have contacted the reviewer. Once again, I remind you that he would have no reason to do so.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to post
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.

Well, that is certainly the reason given by Nomex when he was inventing guidelines. How could this not be the case?

 

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.

This was not a 1/1. I believe it was a 5/4. (maybe a 4/5?) The reviewer did ask that the CO check on it. According to the CO, he did.

 

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.

Why would they? The common consensus in here is that if a cache is reported to have problems, and the cache owner refuses to accept their maintenance responsibilities, the cache should be archived. Was that the case here, or are you just typing more verbal obfuscation? Because, frankly, I'm not seeing that this is the case. If I recall correctly, the CO claimed to have checked the cache the same day that it was disabled. I have never been that prompt. However, instead of giving kudos to the CO for doing what he was asked to do, in a rapid manner, he gets insulted.

 

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.

Wouldn't the same burden of honesty fall on the reviewer? If a reviewer wants explicit proof that your cache exists, and posts a note saying nothing more than he wants you to check on it, has the reviewer been honest? Since the reviewers are the ones with the authority to archive our caches if their needs/wants/desires are not met, I think the responsibility for clear communication falls squarely on the shoulders of the reviewers. Asking for one thing while covertly requiring something entirely different would require that we all be mind readers, which I feel is unreasonable.

 

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.

Since their reviewer has already made the stand that a cache which is unfound is a violation of the guidelines, and Groundseak has decided to support the statements made by that reviewer, I don't see this clarification coming any time soon. I hope a Lackey will prove me wrong, as that is a mighty unsettling pill to swallow... :laughing:

Link to post
Reviewers are allowed to use judgment. It is not necessary to invent a whimsical new guideline in order to exercise judgment.

If that's the case, can you speculate as to why Nomex opted to invent a guideline to serve his needs? :laughing:

I would think that, if he had exercised judgement, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Link to post
Reviewers are allowed to use judgment. It is not necessary to invent a whimsical new guideline in order to exercise judgment.

If that's the case, can you speculate as to why Nomex opted to invent a guideline to serve his needs? :laughing:

I don't see that he invented any guideline.

 

I would think that, if he had exercised judgement, we wouldn't be having this debate.

What makes you think he didn't exercise judgement?

Link to post

Had the reviewer messed up TPTB would have overruled him and unarchived the caches...

 

You would be surprised how quickly people in positions of authority that pooch up something so visible and obvious do whatever is necessary to cover their backsides. People do it all the time. As has been pointed out more than once in this thread TPTB are just people capable of making mistakes. They are not flawless. Where the stuff hits the fan is in how they man up and deal with the situation and make good on it.

 

Reviewers don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt before archiving a cache. This is not a court...

 

Again, as has been pointed out. They do have the ability to archive at will without any real justification. After all they have the wall of 'privacy' to hide behind if they or their kindred make a mistake.

 

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...

 

I have caches that I can literally drive by at 55-65 mph and see if they are in place all the while a high count find cacher would spend a long time looking at the site for it and sometimes not finding it at all. The time it takes to check a cache is immaterial if the owner knows where to look. You logic is flawed and only throws another hoop for potential cache hiders to jump through. Now we have to make certain that a cache is found within an unspecified amount of time by someone. With your addition we now must guess as to the proper amount of time to be expected to check and verify a cache? All to Get real. It's a hobby that is meant to be fun not a hoop jumping contest.

 

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...

 

You don't have to read anything into those notes. It's there. Toe tapping around it doesn't make it any less so.

 

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....

 

God forbid there actually be a cache in existence that lives up to the rating that was given to it. I think that is why we have ignore features. That way you can make the hard ones go away without taking the fun away from folks that actually enjoy a challenge.

 

... 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.

 

Again, more unspoken rules and regs that we as cache hiders are left to try and guess or discern by reading tea leaves and incense. How long is long, how quick is quick. Even more fun when someone halfway across the country not even familiar with the area starts pushing buttons. That is something that is only fueling the frustration of some cachers. A lot of folks complain about all the film cans but all these unspoken rules I think contribute to them. I for one wouldn't want to put a ton of work into something unique and enjoyable only to have to jump through hoops that are not listed on the regs and listings page. It's primarily one of the reasons why many in my area have given up placing anything, myself included. Before you read into it that Keystone is an issue because of my location he isn't. I find him firm, fair and consistent. More than I and others can say about the other reviewers in our area. Will my opinion I just stated put a target on my back? Probably. But it has to be said. These guys are fallible individuals just like everyone else. The respect comes when if they make a mistake they man up to it, not stay silent. As for appeals, we all know how well those turn out in the end. Not very good most of the time.

 

I joined this hobby as a stress relief as have others. In the past few years it's been anything but with unwritten rules, regs, guidelines or whatever politically correct phrase that is used now. So much so I've seen friends leave because of it. Reading these forums and seeing the real side of this thing I would have been much better off just downloading the waypoints searching them out and leaving it at that.

Link to post

If memory serves, one participant in this thread used to be a reviewer.

Ed, (TheAlabamaRambler), are reviewers allowed to invent guidelines at whim?

No sir, they are not.

 

That's one of the reason's I can defend Groundspeak on this issue without knowing the facts. Under the nom de plume Naturefish I reviewed Arkansas and Alabama. I know these people. I know basically how they think and what their values are. I have every reason to trust them... in fact I trust the management of Groundspeak more than any business I have ever been associated with. They trusted me to act in the best interest of the geocaching community, to uphold the guidelines and to represent the best of the game. They gave me the flexibility and discretion to interpret the guidelines as I understood them to best apply to any given situation, they supported me when I was right and slapped my hand when I was wrong. Trust me on this, Groundspeak WILL over-ride a Reviewer's decision if they think it is wrong!

 

I broke the rules, someone made an issue of it, and I got 'fired' as a Volunteer Reviewer. I saw Groundspeak in action on an issue like this and even though they did not want to lose a Reviewer they did what was right and they did it with integrity. If the Reviewer in question here had done something dastardly Groundspeak would not rush to cover for him, they would investigate and, if he really did something underhanded, would let him go. That's why I am convinced that there is no fire under this column of smoke.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to post
I don't see that he invented any guideline.

I'm not sure how else to read what he said. Have you read Nomex's posts on the cache page?

He states in his cache disabling note:

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

Nomex took deliberate action against the cache. The only reason he gave for that action was that it was "in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found". Since this debate started, I have carefully scoured the guidelines in search of any text which so much as hints that a cache which has not been found "needs" to be checked. I still haven't found such a reference. In Nomex's second sentence, he issued a directive, stating that "The cache owner needs to check on this cache". Nomex then cited the guidelines, specifically those guidelines referring to maintenance. I went back and scoured those again, and I'm still not seeing anything suggesting that a maintenance visit is required when a cache goes unfound. From here, it certainly looks like Nomex is taking action based upon nonexistent guidelines.

 

In any case, that question was really directed at Ed. While I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, I was kinda hoping to get an answer from someone who has actually been in Nomex's shoes. Not to say you can't answer. This is your sandbox as much as it is mine, so feel free to speak your mind. It's just that I was looking for something a little more definitive than the opinion of another player. I thought I read once that Ed used to be a reviewer, which is why I directed my question toward him.

 

What makes you think he didn't exercise judgement?

Sorry. I thought my multiple repetitions made that clear. Obviously I was mistaken. In my opinion, an agent, acting for a company, should not make highly negative, public comments about a customer, then refuse to explain himself. Also, an agent, acting under the color of authority of his company, should not create guidelines for the customers to follow. That task should fall to the CEO, or which ever Lackeys he designates. I see both acts as displays of poor judgement. If you, on the other hand, see these acts as being of sound judgement, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. :laughing:

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to post
snip

I'd like to respond point by point but since you quote me so much that you had to break this into two post already l'll leave the quotes out.

 

1. I didn't mean to imply that reviewer can treat cacher unfairly based on whether they like them or not. Certainly, they may use there past experience with a cacher to evaluate how trustworthy they may be. It is no different than identifying who is trolling in the forums based on past experience. Caches get archived without absolute beyond a reasonable doubt proof because Groundspeak feels there are some cases where it is better to err on the side of archiving the cache. The cache can always be unarchived later (assume the cache owner doesn't throw it away in a huff).

 

Reviewer don't make up rules. I have complained on other threads that reviewers sometime have interpretations of rules that amount to unwritten guidelines. My first post in this thread even said that was the case here. Later I went back and read the guidelines and it is stated that fro physical caches to be listed there must be a container and a log. The reviewer believed that was the case here. We can only speculate on what made him believe that.

 

2. Permission and location issues sometimes result in immediate archiving. That was not the case here. The cache was first disabled and then archived. The examples were given because we here more often where a cache owner complains his cache was hidden because someone says somebody told them the cache was placed without permission. If the cache owner posted a note saying "I got permission. Whoever was saying that this cache is not place with permission is not the correct person to make that decision." Should the reviewer believe the cache owner and unarchive the cache or should the review ask to see proof of permission?

 

3. I agree. Nomex's note was poorly worded. Use of canned notes by reviewers has in the past led to confusion about what is needed to make a cache compliant. The best is to ask the reviewer. But Yes, the reviewer didn't explain the problem well and the cache owner did what he thought he was being asked to do (or perhaps lied about doing it and there could be evidence that he lied here.

 

4. Of course I went on to say that reviewers could write note that use language to indicate a statement is the reviewers belief or opinion so that it isn't a direct contradiction of what the cache owner says. It seems that direct language, even though it might seem to say the other person is a liar, is often clearer and emphasizes that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. In traditional Japanese, it is considered impolite to contradict anybody, so the language has a lot of weasel words instead of disagreeing. That leads to lots of misunderstandings with foreigners who don't realize they've just been told "No".

 

5. From my vantage point, while the cache owner did what he thought he was being asked to do - because Nomex's canned note was confusing - there was also many opportunities he had to keep his cache. He could've contacted Nomex with questions, or when the cache was archived he could have asked questions again instead of complaining about the reviewer. Sure it seemed to him that the reviewer was treating him unfairly. It seems that way to several other people as well. But Groundspeak and the reviewers tend to deal better with people who treat the reviewers with respect and calmly argue their case. Don't you find it easier to deal with people who respect your authority instead of just shouting in your face that your treating them unfairly? (Of course you have had training and much more experience dealing with the latter than the geocaching reviewers, so you probably have a way to defuse these situations).

 

6. Nomex just says that [it appears] there isn't a cache to find. I don't know if there was something other than the DNF logs that made him say that. Other people have given example of other caches with many DNFs that haven't been archive. As I say later, Grounspeak could put an end to this speculation by posting here or clarifying the guidelines. I don't think a difficult cache will be archive just because it gets a certain number of DNFs.

 

7. The point I was making was that for an easy cache reviewers use a run of DNFs all the time to determine the cache needs maintenance. It can be used on a difficult cache as well (27 DNFs is a lot more that the 4 or 5 that might trigger a reviewer to ask for maintenance on a 1/1.)

 

8. Again, I think I was pointing out the difference between this cache and 1/1 where the cache owner ignores the reviewers request altogether. I have no idea why Nomex took action and why the owner's claim of a maintenance visit wasn't satisfactory. I suppose we could demand that Nomex explain it here.

 

9. Again I've state that Nomex's note could have been more explicit about what was needed to keep the cache from being archived. He did specifically invite the CO to ask questions. The CO did not. My point here was that we can look at this as a learning experience. Ask the reviewer if your are not sure what he is asking for. If you are sure, and he archives your cache anyway, ask the reviewer or Groundspeak appeals because you obviously didn't understand. I'm pretty sure if you are polite they will explain and give you a chance to fix the problem.

 

10. You are confusing two things. There is already a guideline that a physical cache requires a container and a log. There is also a guideline the cache owners should periodically check on their cache especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.) A series of DNFs without an owner maintenance log or note from the owner may indicate that one of these guidelines in not being met. Reviewers can ask the cache owner to do maintenance. Perhaps because it would be ludicrous to ask a cache owner who listed a bogus cache to confirm that there is a container to be found, there needs to be a clarification that reviewers can ask for additional information about the cache as proof that it exists. There is no guideline that I can find that says a cache has to be found within a certain time or berfore a certain number of DNFs are logged. People are acting as if this one case implies such guideline. I simply suggested that a Groundspeak Lackey could confirm this is not the case.

Link to post
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).

 

1103352825_5f2e59576b.jpg

 

This thread has gone to the point where I give up and just scroll down through the constant blabbing and look for cool stuff.

 

Cool picture Ambrosia! I do believe I have done that cache before. :laughing:

Link to post

snip

Same as with the quoting in Clan Riffsters reponse

 

1. Perhaps sometimes Groundspeak covers for reviewers that make mistakes. I haven't seen this. What I see i that the reviewing process isn't exact. Reviewer's make judgment calls all the time. Groundspeak tend to back the reviewer's judgments. However, "rogue" reviewers who are inventing guidelines so the can approve only caches from their friend and deny or archive cache from people they don't like don't last. Groundspeak does override reviewers if they find the guidelines have not been applied properly or if they feel that an exception to a guideline is waranted. These cases usually don't come to the forums (not as much drama in having something approved). But I've seen a few case.

 

2. You can be cynical and believe that reviewers make arbitrary decisions just because they can. The point I was making was that it doesn't take much to get a cache archived it is some place that doesn't allow caches or if someone says the cache was placed with out permission. At least Clan Riffster made the point that this was not a location issue. The need to archive first and ask questions later was certainly not the case here. Instead a poor attempt to get the cache owner to provide some indication that there was a cache that could be found, resulted in a post by the cache owner that he checked on the cache. That didn't satisfy Nomex. At that point the cache owner could have still taken action to find out what the problem with the cache was.

 

3. I was simply trying to speculate on why Nomex may not have found the maintenance note an adequate response. Certainly it may be possible that the cache owner got the disabled notification, was a block away from the cache, could see his fake brick in place from the bridge, and posted the enabled log on Blackberry all within a few minutes. There may be other indications that made Nomex and Groundspeak feel the cache owner was not be honest about this.

 

4. I tried to make a point that instead of putting all the weasel words you are asking for, the reviewers may have found that is is usually clearer to communicate in a direct language. That always runs the risk of insulting somebody but its a tradeoff. Most people can understand that Nomex is express his belief base on the evidence he has. If you had evidence to convince him otherwise you should offer it instead of just becoming indignant that he doesn't believe you.

 

5. I really don't see difficult caches being archived just because someone who likes P&Gs can't get a closest cache off their list. It is possible that since this cache had only DNFs on it that someone complained because they felt the cache was not even there. The CO had opportunity to present a case that cache was there but didn't. Should he have to provide evidence? I don't see why not. If a reviewer believes that there hasn't been a cache to find, all the cache owner needs to do it provide some evidence to the contrary.

 

I have said elsewhere in this thread that caches are meant to be found. I can understand placing a difficult cache as a challenge to cachers to find. But I can't conceive of why a cache owner would want to make a a cache that is impossible to find. There is no guideline that says a cache must be found in a certain length of time or have some maximum number of DNFs in a row. But if I had a cache like this and couldn't figure out why it wasn't being found, I would correct the problem or archive the cache. (I have a puzzle that hasn't been found in 4 years and have recently posted a note that it will be archived shortly. One problem is the difficulty of the puzzle but the more serious problem is that nature seems to have take back the trail that went to the cache so it may not be reachable without serious bushwhacking through poison oak).

 

6. I am one of those who has railed against what seems like unwritten guidelines. My first post in this thread said this sounded like a new unwritten guideline. But I checked the guidelines and there is clearly a guideline that there must be a cache to find (container and log). There may have been a cache, but the evidence the reviewer had was the opposite. I agree that the reviewer failed to adequately explain the issue to the CO and that resulted in the CO doing less than the reviewer expected. Most always the angst in the forums is over a written guideline and simply that someone either didn't understand the guideline or did not anticipate that the guideline would apply in a particular situation. I've asked for Groundspeak to provide rationale for the guidelines and clarifications when needed so they can be understood better. Occasionally, MissJenn or another lackey will post something but it comes in drips and drabs.

Link to post

I still have yet to see how Groundspeak benefits from the "unjust" archiving of this cache. Despite this tempest in a teapot they have stuck to their guns.

 

I can only come up with a few scenarios.

 

1. The reviewer messed up and they are standing behind him regardless. I don't buy this because they have a record of overruling reviewers who make mistakes. It would have been an easy mistake to correct if they felt it warranted correcting.

 

2. They screwed up and are standing firm to save face. Another one that I don't believe because they have a record of reversing questionable decisions when the community uproar was loud enough.

 

3. They don't like the cache owner and are persecuting him. The fact that he has other difficult to find caches that they have not had issues with tells me that this is a stretch.

 

4. They have a reasonable cause to believe that the cache owner was not being honest. Judging from the CO's posts here where his story is full of inconsistencies and incredulities I have a hard time ruling this one out.

 

Bottom line is that the archival of this cache brought no benefits to Groundspeak and the review team - in fact quite the opposite. The easy thing to do would have been to say "oops our bad" and re-instate the cache. They haven't done so, so that tells me that they are certain that they have done the correct thing.

Link to post

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.

I'd like to thank Mr. T for his excellent post. The post ends with the text quoted above. While I'm not a lackey, just a volunteer, I can confirm that there is no existing or new guideline saying that reviewers ought to be seeking out difficult unfound caches and archiving them. There are several such caches in my review territory and I don't plan on taking any action just because they're unfound. As others have posted before, I don't see a need for hiders of other difficult caches to worry about their hides being archived. The cache discussed in this thread was handled under the existing framework of the Cache Maintenance guideline.

 

I can also confirm from personal experience that Groundspeak WILL overturn a reviewer's decision when they are wrong. It has happened to me several times over the years, most recently in late September. The same is true for other volunteers who are doing their best to exercise judgment, but sometimes miss the mark. The vast majority of these situations never spark forum threads.

 

In this regard, I would like to thank The Alabama Rambler for his post that spoke of his experience as a volunteer who was asked to step down. Wouldn't a "fired" volunteer be more likely to air dirty laundry or grind an axe? If you don't believe me, believe him. What a class act of a posting that was.

Link to post

Keep those wagons circled guys. You're just proving our points for us. Easily I might add. At this point it sounds like several of you are quoting a well worded memo despite the obvious holes.

Thanks for that respectful answer. Now, if you'll excuse me, there are a number of BiT and Team Guisinger caches I need to go and archive.

 

(I am a reviewer in this geocacher's home area and the named geocachers are two hiders of excellent, difficult caches.)

Link to post

Keep those wagons circled guys. You're just proving our points for us. Easily I might add. At this point it sounds like several of you are quoting the same well worded memo despite the obvious holes.

 

I'd respond to that but I seem to have misplaced my talking points memo. Give me some time to find it.

Link to post

Testosterone---I think that about sums it up, Mr. Snat. Good grief folks think about what is half way important. Having health, having some friends, saying you are sorry when you are wrong, having some fun. Too short is this life to spend all your time fighting, especially over some trivial mistake that someone has made. If I were held to the fire for every mistake or misunderstanding I have caused I would be a charcoal briquette by now. I am grateful for the slack some have given me .

Link to post

Keep those wagons circled guys. You're just proving our points for us. Easily I might add. At this point it sounds like several of you are quoting the same well worded memo despite the obvious holes.

:laughing::):D;)

I've enjoyed observing the tortured logic and totally unwarranted conclusions running rampant through this thread, but I do believe this one wins the prize!

(If you're keeping score at home, this is my first response in this thread.)

Link to post

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.

 

Agreed! As one of the rubberneckers on this thread I can assure you that repeatedly viewing and catching up on which direction this thread is going does not mean I am really all that interested in this particular cache archival. If the CO was improperly wronged then I hope GS will give him the apology he deserves. On the other hand if he in some way violated the rules then good for GS for helping to keep the integrity of the game above reproach.

 

So no, my repeated visits to this thread should not be construed as a fearful watching and waiting for GS to let the other foot to drop on me or other cachers rights. My repeated visits to this thread reflect on my present level of boredom and it would be erroneous to try and interpret my visits as siding with one side or another. While I'm sure some of this thread's rubberneckers do care I can assure you that to assume all of us care would be very incorrect. So to both sides I'd suggest that it might be best to not assume about that which is not really known. Happy caching everybody! :laughing:

Link to post

"The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it or archive it, after picking up any geo-litter"

 

Does not the phrase, "picking up any geo-litter", suggest that there was something there in the first place and that it may have been damaged or destroyed?

So why was this cache archived?

 

I don't post often but I do read the forums and do care.

Link to post

"The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it or archive it, after picking up any geo-litter"

 

Does not the phrase, "picking up any geo-litter", suggest that there was something there in the first place and that it may have been damaged or destroyed?

So why was this cache archived?

 

Not necessarily. It could mean geo-litter from those searching for the cache. Meaning make sure the cache site is a nice or nicer than when you "placed" the cache.

Link to post
4. They have a reasonable cause to believe that the cache owner was not being honest. Judging from the CO's posts here where his story is full of inconsistencies and incredulities I have a hard time ruling this one out.

Something I am faced with as a LEO is making decisions regarding the direction an investigation will go, based upon only a few facts. If I choose the right direction, hopefully my choice will lead to additional facts, and I can upgrade my thoughts and suspicions to a degree which would meet probable cause standards. Since I can only go with what has been posted here, as well as what has been posted on the cache page, my attempts at understanding the motivations behind both sides of this scenario are somewhat thwarted. As such, I have reached the following conclusions, based upon insufficient data:

 

1 ) Nomex erred in his choice of verbiage. Comments like the ones he posted on the cache page do nothing but inflame the cache owner and the community, giving the reviewing process, if not a black eye, at least a slightly red one. This firestorm would have died out a dozen pages ago, if he had given more thought to his communiques.

 

2 ) Nomex had no secret, underlying motive for his actions, and did what he did based upon good faith.

 

3 ) Groundspeak erred by stonewalling the community, following Nomex's unfortunate choice of words. There have been enough incidents in the past where TPTB have put aside their policy of privacy in the interest of protecting the game that to stick to their guns in the midst of this tempest puts them in a bad light. While there are some in here who won't be satisfied until they know every conceivable detail, I think the vast majority would be content with just some added background in how this was handled. Such information would not compromise their privacy concerns.

 

4 ) Groundspeak has no secret, underlying motive for their actions, and did what they did in good faith.

 

5 ) The local reviewers erred in not handling this themselves. The claims that they were busy, and that Nomex just happened to show up to help hold little water. I believe that the local reviewers were tired of dealing with the CO, and didn't want to engage him further. I also believe that they asked for outside intervention to deal with this unpleasantness. While I have seen many cases where out of town reviewers will offer their services, stepping up to the plate in the interest of keeping the game going, this does not appear to be the case this time. Were there any other caches addressed, archived or published by Nomex, in this area, during that time frame? Were the local reviewers so swamped that they didn't have two minutes to post their own archival note on the cache page during the month between when Nomex disabled it and when he archived it? I'm not buying it. Hopefully, they learned something by this. If the local reviewers feel they either cannot, or do not want to deal with a problem child, simply saying so would add a lot of credibility to their claims. Putting up a smokescreen of being busy, just looks like collusion.

 

6 ) Super Fly royally dropped the ball at several points during this incident. I know that making rash, emotional decisions is a possibility for all of us, especially under these circumstances, and this might certainly be the case here, but my gut instinct is to call foul. Without evidence, I cannot condemn someone who has acquired such a positive standing in his community, as indicated by most of the locals who posted here. However, some of the things he claimed simply defy common sense. The totality of the circumstances weigh against him.

 

7 ) There are folks in these forums who will always believe the worst of TPTB, despite the evidence. Arguing with them becomes an exercise in futility.

 

8 ) There are folks in these forums who will always believe the best of TPTB, despite the evidence. Arguing with them becomes an exercise in futility.

 

9 ) The moderators absolutely did the right thing by allowing this thread to run its course. Had they shut this one down early, silencing the community, that action, combined with the stonewalling from TPTB, would have left many of us with bad tastes in our mouths. Hats off to them. :laughing:

 

10 ) I think it's time for me to go from participant to spectator. Of the Groundspeak defenders, the only one consistently putting forth succinct debating points, (as opposed to the many who say "just have faith"), is Toz. We've both said what we think, and at this point, further debate would do naught but add to the broken record feel that this thread has acquired.

 

See y'all on the trails!

Link to post

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=

 

 

Cutting away all the extras, does anyone still believe this is a "one-off"? Wow, this cache sounds very much like the cache in question in the topic at hand...does it not?

 

but hey, maybe it's just a "two-off"? Or, maybe there's more and more out there that we'd never know about since a LARGE portion of the caching world never visits these forums?

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post
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).

 

1103352825_5f2e59576b.jpg

 

This thread has gone to the point where I give up and just scroll down through the constant blabbing and look for cool stuff.

 

Cool picture Ambrosia! I do believe I have done that cache before. :laughing:

 

Thanks! :) A fun cache. Good times, good times. :D

Link to post
I don't see that he invented any guideline.

I'm not sure how else to read what he said. Have you read Nomex's posts on the cache page?

He states in his cache disabling note:

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

Nomex took deliberate action against the cache. The only reason he gave for that action was that it was "in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found". Since this debate started, I have carefully scoured the guidelines in search of any text which so much as hints that a cache which has not been found "needs" to be checked. I still haven't found such a reference. In Nomex's second sentence, he issued a directive, stating that "The cache owner needs to check on this cache". Nomex then cited the guidelines, specifically those guidelines referring to maintenance. I went back and scoured those again, and I'm still not seeing anything suggesting that a maintenance visit is required when a cache goes unfound. From here, it certainly looks like Nomex is taking action based upon nonexistent guidelines.

I still don’t see any reference to any 'invented' guideline.

 

You seem to interpret this ...

 

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

 

... as saying "I hereby archive this cache because it has never been found."

 

But when I read it that’s not what I hear at all. What I hear is "I hereby archive this cache because it is in violation of maintenance guidelines ..." and, from Nomex’s actual archival note, which you didn’t quote, "... as we have very good reason to believe there is no cache here at all."

 

The "never been found" reference only appears in Nomex’s warning notice, while the "maintenance guideline / there is no cache" reference appears in the actual archival note.

 

The only reason he gave for that action was that it was "in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found".

Yes, when you read it that way it sure sounds like that is his only reason, but that’s only because you picked a small portion of one of his notes and quoted it out of context.

 

The entire quote:

 

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

 

Now bear with me for a moment, because I think I can help. Let’s take this sentence:

 

This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it has never been found.

 

And rearrange it like so:

 

Because it has never been found, this geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit.

 

Same words, same phrasing, totally different meaning ... yes?

 

In your interpretation he cites "never been found" as his sole justification for archival.

 

In my interpretation he only gives "never been found" as the reason it was brought to his attention, and later cites maintenance issues as his sole justification for archival.

 

Let's also apply some logic: Why would a reviewer archive a cache simply because it has never been found? Doesn’t he know it is supposed to be an extremely challenging hide? Of course he does.

 

I think what happened in his warning note is that he used an existing bit of default boilerplate text and modified it slightly for the occasion. And I think it’s fair to say, after hearing what I believe to be a substantial misinterpretation on your part (and others), that the sequencing of his thoughts in the resulting note were somewhat clumsy, and could have been presented more clearly.

 

Or I may be totally full of it and Nomex did in fact invent an ad hoc guideline for malicious purposes, as you say. I'm not Nomex; I’m just a speculating spectator like you.

 

But what I do know is that you and I have interpreted his notes as saying two entirely different things – and that my interpretation seems, to me at least, far more logical and believable than yours.

 

It is not my intent to insult you OR your interpretation; I can clearly see how you came to it. I just don't agree with it.

Link to post

I think it's time for me to go from participant to spectator. Of the Groundspeak defenders, the only one consistently putting forth succinct debating points, (as opposed to the many who say "just have faith"), is Toz. We've both said what we think, and at this point, further debate would do naught but add to the broken record feel that this thread has acquired.

 

See y'all on the trails!

 

I'd like to say that most of your posts have pretty much said what was on my mind. I stopped posting a while back for a few reasons.

 

1) I think that no matter how poorly Nomex actually handled the situation, I believe he must have had good cause to archive the cache. I don't need to know his reasons. I trust Groundspeak's long track record. I would love to hear from Nomex that he sent other communications to SuperFly via email better explaining what he wanted. I would hope that the first reviewer note was not the only communication since it did not properly reflect what the reviewer desired.

 

2) I have every confidence that the staff, both TPTB AND the volunteer reviewers, have been discussing how to handle similar situations better in the future. We're not necessarily going to be privy to these discussions, but it would be nice if we had some assurances that this was indeed happening. Regardless, I am sure, based on how well things tend to run around here, that this is happening.

 

Though I have been hoping that the continued debate would encourage TPTB to at least step forward and assure us that this situation has been reviewed and that similar situations in the future would be handled better, this has not happened.

 

At this point, I don't see much hope of it happening and therefore really see no point to further debate.

 

But, I will continue to monitor this thread in hopes that TPTB will step forward and offer us those assurances.

Link to post

For some reason I recently thought back to the change that was made to disallow ALRs, and all the folks that rallied around Groundspeak to congratulate them on a well made decision. These people were giving each other high fives in the thread and had a great time telling those that didn't like the decision that if they didn't like it they could go cache somewhere else, or start their own cache site that allowed ALRs.

 

 

I believe one of the suggestions was something like, "If you don't like it why don't you go start a site called www.controlcaching.com?"

 

 

It's funny to me that MANY of the people that were behind Groundspeak's decision then, are now upset with this recent decision (to archive a cache and then not publically explain why TPTB believed the cache was not there).

 

 

I wonder if any of these same people want to go start a website called www.fulldisclosurecaching.com?

 

 

Something tells me no.

 

 

My viewpoint then is pretty much the same as it is now. This is Groundspeak's sandbox and if I want to play in it then I do so the way they run it. If they don't want to tell me why they did something, then that's their choice. I'm free to leave if I want, and so is anyone else if they really don't like the way it's run.

 

 

I'm going to stay. I like it here. :laughing:

Link to post

I think it's time for me to go from participant to spectator. Of the Groundspeak defenders, the only one consistently putting forth succinct debating points, (as opposed to the many who say "just have faith"), is Toz. We've both said what we think, and at this point, further debate would do naught but add to the broken record feel that this thread has acquired.

 

See y'all on the trails!

 

I'd like to say that most of your posts have pretty much said what was on my mind. I stopped posting a while back for a few reasons.

 

1) I think that no matter how poorly Nomex actually handled the situation, I believe he must have had good cause to archive the cache. I don't need to know his reasons. I trust Groundspeak's long track record. I would love to hear from Nomex that he sent other communications to SuperFly via email better explaining what he wanted. I would hope that the first reviewer note was not the only communication since it did not properly reflect what the reviewer desired.

 

2) I have every confidence that the staff, both TPTB AND the volunteer reviewers, have been discussing how to handle similar situations better in the future. We're not necessarily going to be privy to these discussions, but it would be nice if we had some assurances that this was indeed happening. Regardless, I am sure, based on how well things tend to run around here, that this is happening.

 

Though I have been hoping that the continued debate would encourage TPTB to at least step forward and assure us that this situation has been reviewed and that similar situations in the future would be handled better, this has not happened.

 

At this point, I don't see much hope of it happening and therefore really see no point to further debate.

 

But, I will continue to monitor this thread in hopes that TPTB will step forward and offer us those assurances.

Thirded.

Link to post
I honestly think the issue here will never be dealt with.
I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak thinks the issue has been dealt with and is over. I'm pretty sure you will not see public accounting from Groundspeak of the issue. From my experience here, that's just "how they roll."
It's unfortunate and likely true.

 

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

Interestingly, the cache owner did rest. He didn't bring teh issue to the forum or even send proof to TPTB that the cache did, indeed, exist.

 

So tell me, hypothetically, if you submitted a cache but never actually hid the cache, and a couple years later it was archived because TPTB found out that it didn't exist, would you shout from every mountain, or just move on?

Link to post
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!

In general, you should toss a couple of laughing smileys into your post so people know that you are joking.

 

Surely, you are joking. Otherwise, you are emphatically stating that all individuals who live in the Grand Rapids area are of such high moral fiber that they would never lie. Since this position can be easily disproved with just a quick googlage, you must be joking.

Link to post
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.

If someone can prove that SF actually placed the cache, speak up now.

If you cannot prove that SF actually placed the cache, please, remain silent or speak up against the practice of listing non-existant caches.

 

:laughing::)

Link to post

Based SOLELY on the cache owners posts and the cache page, we know that there are inconsistencies. There clearly was some communication that we are not privy to.

 

I imagine that it went down something like this:

  1. SF emails another cacher explaining that the cache does not actually exist.
  2. The cacher passes this information to a local reviewer, requesting that his identity not be divulged.
  3. The reviewer, knowing that the archival of the non-existant cache is likely to set off lots of local drama, asks for assistance from a non-local reviewer, Nomex.
  4. Nomex requests a maintenance check, hoping that SF will simply state that the cache has gone missing and archive it.
  5. Instead, SF lies to Nomex, stating that he did a maintenance check on the non-existant cache.
  6. Nomex immediately archives the cache.
  7. SF 'appeals' to TPTB without offering any proof of the existance of the cache.
  8. In working the appeal, Miss Jenn obtains the facts of the case from Nomex.
  9. Surprised by SF's brazeness in appealling the archival of a cache that doesn't exist, Miss Jenn warns SF to knock off his shenanigans.
  10. TPTB refuse to discuss details of the case in the forums because doing so could/would 'out' the person who reported that the cache doesn't exist. While SF waived his privacy, his waiver didn't cover the privacy of the third party.

This is all speculation, of course, but it does fit all the facts of this case.

Edited by sbell111
Link to post
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.

 

What would you have done if a few customers came to you and asked why you gave what appeared to be obviously wrong advise? You appeared to have completely blundered in your dealings with that client and other clients are now asking what went wrong. You'd just tell them it was none of their business? If I were a perspective clients I'd find somewhere else to seek advise. I'm sure you'd also do some sort of damage control.

 

Quite honestly I can't believe you've been in business 28 years and have never had a dissatisfied customer. That simply doesn't happen. You can't please everyone. You can only do so much. But you always try to do the best you can do.

Link to post
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...

Or even close. No one is demanding to know how many servers the company maintains or the salaries of the paid lackeys.

 

The only thing relevant would be there was a mistake and did it get fixed. You analogy of my business the mistake was acknowledged and corrected. With the archiving of this cache there has been no acknowledgment of anything.

Link to post
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).

 

1103352825_5f2e59576b.jpg

 

This thread has gone to the point where I give up and just scroll down through the constant blabbing and look for cool stuff.

 

Cool picture Ambrosia! I do believe I have done that cache before. :laughing:

 

If I were to guess, I would put money on that it is the ape cache.

 

Jim

Link to post

Based SOLELY on the cache owners posts and the cache page, we know that there are inconsistencies. There clearly was some communication that we are not privy to.

 

I imagine that it went down something like this:

  1. SF emails another cacher explaining that the cache does not actually exist.
  2. The cacher passes this information to a local reviewer, requesting that his identity not be divulged.
  3. The reviewer, knowing that the archival of the non-existant cache is likely to set off lots of local drama, asks for assistance from a non-local reviewer, Nomex.
  4. Nomex requests a maintenance check, hoping that SF will simply state that the cache has gone missing and archive it.
  5. Instead, SF lies to Nomex, stating that he did a maintenance check on the non-existant cache.
  6. Nomex immediately archives the cache.
  7. SF 'appeals' to TPTB without offering any proof of the existance of the cache.
  8. In working the appeal, Miss Jenn obtains the facts of the case from Nomex.
  9. Surprised by SF's brazeness in appealling the archival of a cache that doesn't exist, Miss Jenn warns SF to knock off his shenanigans.
  10. TPTB refuse to discuss details of the case in the forums because doing so could/would 'out' the person who reported that the cache doesn't exist. While SF waived his privacy, his waiver didn't cover the privacy of the third party.

This is all speculation, of course, but it does fit all the facts of this case.

 

I have a very similar theory to this one...

Link to post
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.
I'd like to thank Mr. T for his excellent post. The post ends with the text quoted above. While I'm not a lackey, just a volunteer, I can confirm that there is no existing or new guideline saying that reviewers ought to be seeking out difficult unfound caches and archiving them. There are several such caches in my review territory and I don't plan on taking any action just because they're unfound. As others have posted before, I don't see a need for hiders of other difficult caches to worry about their hides being archived. The cache discussed in this thread was handled under the existing framework of the Cache Maintenance guideline.

 

I can also confirm from personal experience that Groundspeak WILL overturn a reviewer's decision when they are wrong. It has happened to me several times over the years, most recently in late September. The same is true for other volunteers who are doing their best to exercise judgment, but sometimes miss the mark. The vast majority of these situations never spark forum threads.

 

In this regard, I would like to thank The Alabama Rambler for his post that spoke of his experience as a volunteer who was asked to step down. Wouldn't a "fired" volunteer be more likely to air dirty laundry or grind an axe? If you don't believe me, believe him. What a class act of a posting that was.

This is all the more reason to question what has gone on. If random archival of caches were the norm then this thread probably wouldn't exist. If generally all reviewers bend over backwards to keep a good cache listed, and we have at least two locals who have never known SF to list bogus caches, then what the heck is going on? We have two unreconciled sides: one claims there was no cache and the saying there was. We have circumstantial evidence both is right. Obviously that can't be. So, which is it?

Link to post
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).

 

1103352825_5f2e59576b.jpg

 

This thread has gone to the point where I give up and just scroll down through the constant blabbing and look for cool stuff.

 

Cool picture Ambrosia! I do believe I have done that cache before. :laughing:

 

If I were to guess, I would put money on that it is the ape cache.

 

Jim

We need more Signal!

38af2978-93cf-4836-9205-354362586932.jpg

Link to post

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=

 

 

Cutting away all the extras, does anyone still believe this is a "one-off"? Wow, this cache sounds very much like the cache in question in the topic at hand...does it not?

 

but hey, maybe it's just a "two-off"? Or, maybe there's more and more out there that we'd never know about since a LARGE portion of the caching world never visits these forums?

 

Way back in post #148 I pointed out a cache in SW Pa. that was archived by Groundspeak HQ that they deemed non-existent. So it's at least a three-off. :)

 

The Indiana cache is interesting, and yes, there are similarities to the cache that is the subject of this thread. Cripes though, it took me about 10 minutes to find out what all the "red herring" references were about. Why don't you Hoosier cachers just call them "decoys" like everyone else? :laughing:

Link to post
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.

 

What would you have done if a few customers came to you and asked why you gave what appeared to be obviously wrong advise? You appeared to have completely blundered in your dealings with that client and other clients are now asking what went wrong. You'd just tell them it was none of their business? If I were a perspective clients I'd find somewhere else to seek advise. I'm sure you'd also do some sort of damage control.

 

Quite honestly I can't believe you've been in business 28 years and have never had a dissatisfied customer. That simply doesn't happen. You can't please everyone. You can only do so much. But you always try to do the best you can do.

Way off topic, but I will answer.

 

Of course we had clients who felt ill served. We were doing custom medical and legal practice management software for PCs in the early 80s and until we (myself, my employees and the industry itself) matured and developed some expertise in such things as workflow, business process and requirements analysis and specification we often were making it up as we went along, and few customers were completely happy with any system.

 

We also did process control systems. Black Warrior Mining, for one, slipped the scope and deliverables of an overhead crane system on an almost weekly basis for almost a year and hollered loud and long that what they originally hired us to build little matched the end result. Bellsouth was looking for analysts to do their Local Exchange Ordering system just as we were rolling off of the Black Warrior project. The IT managers at Bellsouth and Black Warrior were friends and the Bellsouth guy, rather than just not hiring us, invited me to lunch and asked how the Black Warrior project had gone so wrong. I felt a bit ambushed and my first instinct was to cry "they kept moving the target!" but I instead told him that it had indeed been a learning experience for both my company and Black Warrior, that we both did the best we could in a difficult situation, and left it at that. We got the Bellsouth contract and within a year we were hired once again by Black Warrior Mining to do the control system for an elaborate mining machine.

 

I truly believe that if I had trotted out a paper trail and tried to show Bellsouth that the Black Warrior analysts didn't know their fanny from a hole in the ground and kept changing their minds that I would have forever lost both company's business.

 

As it was I kept six people on contract in Bellsouth for four years and did three more contracts over the years for Black Warrior Mining.

 

Edit to add: That overhead crane would later be our only Y2K failure. We had to go back and certify all of our projects leading up to Y2K and we scoured that system (we thought) thoroughly. It passed all of our tests and theirs. In January 2000 the crane quit. It turned out that there was a maintenance log program which checked to assure that a certain bearing system was serviced every 30 days, and if not it would shut down the crane. The data for that part of the log was improper. We just flat missed it, and it took days to find the problem. Black Warrior had to scramble to find another way to move their material while this vital machinery was off-line. They had every right to sue us but didn't. Again, I believe that if we had tried to blame them for the previous deliverable issues not only would we have lost their business but they would have sued to recover damages for the Y2K failure.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to post
...I can also confirm from personal experience that Groundspeak WILL overturn a reviewer's decision when they are wrong. It has happened to me several times over the years, most recently in late September...
Ok, I find this hard to believe! :)

 

Keystone was wrong???? :)

 

My worldview has been shaken...

 

:laughing:

Keep those wagons circled guys. You're just proving our points for us. Easily I might add. At this point it sounds like several of you are quoting the same well worded memo despite the obvious holes.
I see. Just because they have logical, well thought out answers, they must be getting the info from somewhere else. It isn't possible that they wrote them all by themselves... :)
Link to post
If the Reviewer in question here had done something dastardly Groundspeak would not rush to cover for him, they would investigate and, if he really did something underhanded, would let him go. That's why I am convinced that there is no fire under this column of smoke.

 

The reviewer in question did do something dastardly, Nomex deliberately added the word "years" to a form letter that normally does not contain that word. By doing so he deliberately called Superfly a liar. If Groundspeak was the company I used to think they were, they would have him apologize for that.

 

All it would take to restore my faith, and I suspect some others here, would be for Nomex to admit it was wrong to accuse someone in a format they cannot defend themselves in.

 

I don't believe Nomex did anything underhanded, and I don't think he should go. I do think he did something extremely rude.

Link to post

Based SOLELY on the cache owners posts and the cache page, we know that there are inconsistencies. There clearly was some communication that we are not privy to.

 

I imagine that it went down something like this:

  1. SF emails another cacher explaining that the cache does not actually exist.
  2. The cacher passes this information to a local reviewer, requesting that his identity not be divulged.
  3. The reviewer, knowing that the archival of the non-existant cache is likely to set off lots of local drama, asks for assistance from a non-local reviewer, Nomex.
  4. Nomex requests a maintenance check, hoping that SF will simply state that the cache has gone missing and archive it.
  5. Instead, SF lies to Nomex, stating that he did a maintenance check on the non-existant cache.
  6. Nomex immediately archives the cache.
  7. SF 'appeals' to TPTB without offering any proof of the existance of the cache.
  8. In working the appeal, Miss Jenn obtains the facts of the case from Nomex.
  9. Surprised by SF's brazeness in appealling the archival of a cache that doesn't exist, Miss Jenn warns SF to knock off his shenanigans.
  10. TPTB refuse to discuss details of the case in the forums because doing so could/would 'out' the person who reported that the cache doesn't exist. While SF waived his privacy, his waiver didn't cover the privacy of the third party.

This is all speculation, of course, but it does fit all the facts of this case.

 

Yes, you see, that is exactly what I want GS to stipulate. There is no harm in stipulating all of the above, if it is true. SF has waived confidentiality giving TPTB the right to post what they know.

 

One thing that doesn't hold water though. If someone told TPTB that SF said there wasn't really a cache, then TPTB archived a cache based on hearsay. Not cool in a few ways and easily repeated by someone who holds a grudge on another cacher.

 

The fact that TPTB won't stipulate to any of your speculative points is a testament that they are unlikely.

Link to post
The reviewer in question did do something dastardly, Nomex deliberately added the word "years" to a form letter that normally does not contain that word. By doing so he deliberately called Superfly a liar. If Groundspeak was the company I used to think they were, they would have him apologize for that.
Even if the cache has not been at the location for years?

 

Based SOLELY on the cache owners posts and the cache page, we know that there are inconsistencies. There clearly was some communication that we are not privy to.

 

I imagine that it went down something like this:

  1. SF emails another cacher explaining that the cache does not actually exist.
  2. The cacher passes this information to a local reviewer, requesting that his identity not be divulged.
  3. The reviewer, knowing that the archival of the non-existant cache is likely to set off lots of local drama, asks for assistance from a non-local reviewer, Nomex.
  4. Nomex requests a maintenance check, hoping that SF will simply state that the cache has gone missing and archive it.
  5. Instead, SF lies to Nomex, stating that he did a maintenance check on the non-existant cache.
  6. Nomex immediately archives the cache.
  7. SF 'appeals' to TPTB without offering any proof of the existance of the cache.
  8. In working the appeal, Miss Jenn obtains the facts of the case from Nomex.
  9. Surprised by SF's brazeness in appealling the archival of a cache that doesn't exist, Miss Jenn warns SF to knock off his shenanigans.
  10. TPTB refuse to discuss details of the case in the forums because doing so could/would 'out' the person who reported that the cache doesn't exist. While SF waived his privacy, his waiver didn't cover the privacy of the third party.

This is all speculation, of course, but it does fit all the facts of this case.

 

Yes, you see, that is exactly what I want GS to stipulate. There is no harm in stipulating all of the above, if it is true. SF has waived confidentiality giving TPTB the right to post what they know.

SF cannot waive another party's confidentiality. It is right for TPTB to not speak to this issue, at all, since even stating that SF told someone that the cache wasn't there could easily give away the individual to SF.

One thing that doesn't hold water though. If someone told TPTB that SF said there wasn't really a cache, then TPTB archived a cache based on hearsay. Not cool in a few ways and easily repeated by someone who holds a grudge on another cacher.

 

The fact that TPTB won't stipulate to any of your speculative points is a testament that they are unlikely.

As previously stated, this isn't a court of law. It's a game based on trust. If you have two people telling you contradicting things, sometimes you have to make the call as to who is believed.
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...