Jump to content

Rogue Reviewer?


Recommended Posts

><><><SNIP><><><

This is not at all true with respect to the "Head of the Hydra" cache, which is in my review territory. I consider your allegation as a personal attack.

...

btw...if you don't mind answering, how did you conclude there wasn't a cache at the HOTH cache? One cacher has already given detail as to the container and such, sounds like it was indeed there?

You did see the date of the log you are talking about, right? First day of the fourth month.... :signalviolin:
Link to post
><><><SNIP><><><

This is not at all true with respect to the "Head of the Hydra" cache, which is in my review territory. I consider your allegation as a personal attack.

...

btw...if you don't mind answering, how did you conclude there wasn't a cache at the HOTH cache? One cacher has already given detail as to the container and such, sounds like it was indeed there?

You did see the date of the log you are talking about, right? First day of the fourth month.... :signalviolin:

 

We were discussing two different caches altogether...

Link to post

so muc supposition, so little to back it up. Which leaves us right where we were several pages ago. Now, who do you suppose could stop the "rumor mill"?

 

 

Actually nobody. If Groundspeak weighed in with time stamps on logs to back up their actions, someone here would say they were faked.

 

And, knowing this ISN'T a "one-off" it makes me wonder.

 

I've yet to see evidence that this isn't a isolate incident. The one linked to earlier is an entirely different situation.

 

Oh, come on Brian...most of us are rational here. And that cache I linked to looked amazingly similar to me. The "Moonpie" one...well, that's not quite the same at all (I suspect it was a liar's cache with the requirement you log a DNF???).

 

I DNF'd the Moonpie one. It was a film Canister in a swampy drainage pond next to Cracker Barrel. Hence the "off your rocker" reference. No one (including me) just felt like making a thorough search for it. Kind of a spoof of the Off your rocker series. :laughing:

 

Now the Indiana cache that the reviewer archived and accused of "disappearing and reappearing", that one is interesting. I guess that one was just never taken to the national forums, but it looks like it was quite controversial in Indiana. Isolated incidents yes, but it shows that this has happened in the past, and always with difficult caches that DNF'ers are whining about.

 

Edit to add: Back Seat driver in Indiana

Head of the hydra #3 (way off your rocker) in Pa.

 

I stand corrected and, since it was there, this does prove that this has happened before and with a cache that was truly there! So, my question is now, how many DNFs does it take before a reviewer decides the cache isn't there, AND, how does the reviewer come to that conclusion? I suspect that it's much like in this case (moonpie and Indiana cache), the reviewer takes the word of a non-finder? This means, they have no "proof" at all and are merely archiving a cache because it's too hard.

 

Now, I'm NOT saying that's the case of the cache in question, there are several possibilities including some theories which sound somewhat credible. However, how would we know since GS has been tight-lipped from the start save to say TPTB stand behind their reviewer.

 

Now, having re-read the MOONPIE cache (HOTH), I still don't see the proof it wasn't there. Am I assuming something not based on the facts of this cache page? I also don't see KEYSTONE anywhere on the cache page, I see OReviewer and Miss Jenn. I don't see any SBA logs, I don't see anything except what appears to be a close resemblance to the cache in question in this thread...which is exactly what I commented earlier? :signalviolin:

 

And, since TWU has said it was there, I am still wondering how it was decided it didn't exist?

Link to post
Maybe you should take a look Keystone, I wasn't even talking about YOUR work. This is the one I was commenting on, I mistakenly said HOTH as thinking it was the one we were talking about. :laughing: Sorry, I may have confused you, but your tone certainly wasn't nice! Assumptions are a dangerous thing, are they not? :signalviolin:

 

As for "smear campaing" I take THAT as a personal attack, my friend. I am in no way trying to SMEAR anyone in any way, I am looking for answers!

 

Now, if I come across the HOTH link, I'll gladly look into it, if you'd like! :angry:

Perhaps you should have quoted the post talking about the cache you were talking about rather than the post where Keystone is talking about HOTH? Sure would have made your point a bit clearer.
We were discussing two different caches altogether...
According to what you quoted, you were talking about HOTH. :laughing:
Link to post
Maybe you should take a look Keystone, I wasn't even talking about YOUR work. This is the one I was commenting on, I mistakenly said HOTH as thinking it was the one we were talking about. :laughing: Sorry, I may have confused you, but your tone certainly wasn't nice! Assumptions are a dangerous thing, are they not? :signalviolin:

 

As for "smear campaing" I take THAT as a personal attack, my friend. I am in no way trying to SMEAR anyone in any way, I am looking for answers!

 

Now, if I come across the HOTH link, I'll gladly look into it, if you'd like! :angry:

Perhaps you should have quoted the post talking about the cache you were talking about rather than the post where Keystone is talking about HOTH? Sure would have made your point a bit clearer.
We were discussing two different caches altogether...
According to what you quoted, you were talking about HOTH. :laughing:

 

I believe I did, TWICE. Keystone went off on me saying I was talking about the HOTH, I wasn't. I was talking about the BSD cache, which was the one I linked...TWICE!

 

Please, stop the assumptions. It's already been proven to be "dangerous".

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

 

I have nothing but the highest respect for Nomex but how could Groundspeak make any kind of determination without contacting the cache owner with their specific concerns?

 

If the email exhange posted by SF/TPE is accurate and complete, this was not done. If Groundspeak did contact the cache owner then that should be clarified.

 

A third party could know the truth. Be it friends or family.

 

Of course. But if you have two different stories you should probably ask the CO about it, or for specific proof before making a decision.

Link to post

If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

 

I have nothing but the highest respect for Nomex but how could Groundspeak make any kind of determination without contacting the cache owner with their specific concerns?

 

If the email exhange posted by SF/TPE is accurate and complete, this was not done. If Groundspeak did contact the cache owner then that should be clarified.

 

A third party could know the truth. Be it friends or family.

 

Of course. But if you have two different stories you should probably ask the CO about it, or for specific proof before making a decision.

 

We know there's some correspondence missing, TPTB have reportedly asked it be kept confidential.

Link to post

 

If things are as you portray them in your hypothesis, then Superfy created his own problems. If his reputation – the direct result of all the past choices he has made – got a guideline-compliant cache of his archived, (a cache that most likely wouldn't have ended up archived had it been placed by an average cache owner), then no, Superfly is not a victim of Groundspeak. He is a victim of his own history of poor decisions.

 

Wow, that's a FAR leap to make, isn't it? Let's use that in another situation:

 

A guy who is known to be a rapist (from past crimes which he went to prison for) is walking down the street when BAM, the cops tackle him and arrest him. Seems a rape and murder were committed close to where he lives? No real proof, just hearsay and the past history of this person. Should we simply make the leap that, since he has done this before, he should be guilty? Maybe just skip the whole process of a trial and execute? I mean, he did this in the past, he surely brought this on himself...he's a victim of his own history of poor decisions?

 

I know it's apples and oranges in many ways, but that's the basic statement you're making.

Link to post
If things are as you portray them in your hypothesis, then Superfy created his own problems. If his reputation – the direct result of all the past choices he has made – got a guideline-compliant cache of his archived, (a cache that most likely wouldn't have ended up archived had it been placed by an average cache owner), then no, Superfly is not a victim of Groundspeak. He is a victim of his own history of poor decisions.
Wow, that's a FAR leap to make, isn't it? Let's use that in another situation:

 

A guy who is known to be a rapist (from past crimes which he went to prison for) is walking down the street when BAM, the cops tackle him and arrest him. Seems a rape and murder were committed close to where he lives? No real proof, just hearsay and the past history of this person. Should we simply make the leap that, since he has done this before, he should be guilty? Maybe just skip the whole process of a trial and execute? I mean, he did this in the past, he surely brought this on himself...he's a victim of his own history of poor decisions?

 

I know it's apples and oranges in many ways, but that's the basic statement you're making.

I believe that's where the phrase, "Round up the usual suspects", is from.

 

If someone has a known history of being a rapist, and one was committed recently, why wouldn't you want to detain him for questioning first? Seems like a great idea to me.

 

People that are against this are probably also against "profiling". :signalviolin:

Link to post
If things are as you portray them in your hypothesis, then Superfy created his own problems. If his reputation – the direct result of all the past choices he has made – got a guideline-compliant cache of his archived, (a cache that most likely wouldn't have ended up archived had it been placed by an average cache owner), then no, Superfly is not a victim of Groundspeak. He is a victim of his own history of poor decisions.
Wow, that's a FAR leap to make, isn't it? Let's use that in another situation:

 

A guy who is known to be a rapist (from past crimes which he went to prison for) is walking down the street when BAM, the cops tackle him and arrest him. Seems a rape and murder were committed close to where he lives? No real proof, just hearsay and the past history of this person. Should we simply make the leap that, since he has done this before, he should be guilty? Maybe just skip the whole process of a trial and execute? I mean, he did this in the past, he surely brought this on himself...he's a victim of his own history of poor decisions?

 

I know it's apples and oranges in many ways, but that's the basic statement you're making.

I believe that's where the phrase, "Round up the usual suspects", is from.

 

If someone has a known history of being a rapist, and one was committed recently, why wouldn't you want to detain him for questioning first? Seems like a great idea to me.

 

People that are against this are probably also against "profiling". :signalviolin:

 

You ummm...did read my post, right? :laughing::laughing: I see your rolled eyes and raise you one! :angry:

Link to post

KBI, you and I have been on different sides of this issue. Clan Riffster's posts are similar to my thoughts.

 

But you and I do agree on some things that are contained in your last post.

 

"Victim" was not a good choice of words on my part when referring to SF. Others involved could be described as victims. I believe that the reviewers tried their best to make the right decisions, but if they made those decisions based on altered or fabricated information then they could be considered victims.

 

Many local cachers enjoyed that cache for various reasons. If it did indeed exist then those cachers are now victims. Could the cache itself be considered to be a victim?

 

"What goes around comes around" applies here. Call it karma or whatever you want. Your past actions have an effect on your life today and in the future. SF doesn't seem the type that "always seem to have an excuse, blaming something or someone else for their latest debacle". I don't think that the opinions of others matter much to him.

 

I agree that, in this scenario, the reviewers are not to blame. It would be assumed that they acted in good faith, but were mislead by another cacher(s) with an agenda to get revenge on SF.

 

I wouldn't say that, in this scenario, SF got what he deserved. The well crafted and executed cache is something that was separate from whatever dispute he had with other cacher (s). Viewing it as an appropriate casualty because of SF's actions is a bit contrived. SF may have made poor choices, but do we destroy work that was well done to atone for those bad choices?

Link to post
If things are as you portray them in your hypothesis, then Superfy created his own problems. If his reputation – the direct result of all the past choices he has made – got a guideline-compliant cache of his archived, (a cache that most likely wouldn't have ended up archived had it been placed by an average cache owner), then no, Superfly is not a victim of Groundspeak. He is a victim of his own history of poor decisions.
Wow, that's a FAR leap to make, isn't it? Let's use that in another situation:

 

A guy who is known to be a rapist (from past crimes which he went to prison for) is walking down the street when BAM, the cops tackle him and arrest him. Seems a rape and murder were committed close to where he lives? No real proof, just hearsay and the past history of this person. Should we simply make the leap that, since he has done this before, he should be guilty? Maybe just skip the whole process of a trial and execute? I mean, he did this in the past, he surely brought this on himself...he's a victim of his own history of poor decisions?

 

I know it's apples and oranges in many ways, but that's the basic statement you're making.

I believe that's where the phrase, "Round up the usual suspects", is from.

 

If someone has a known history of being a rapist, and one was committed recently, why wouldn't you want to detain him for questioning first? Seems like a great idea to me.

 

People that are against this are probably also against "profiling". :signalviolin:

You ummm...did read my post, right? :laughing::laughing:
That is a very well thought out rebuttal. You make some very interesting points and have given me a lot to think about. My hat is off to you sir! Job well done.
Link to post
If things are as you portray them in your hypothesis, then Superfy created his own problems. If his reputation – the direct result of all the past choices he has made – got a guideline-compliant cache of his archived, (a cache that most likely wouldn't have ended up archived had it been placed by an average cache owner), then no, Superfly is not a victim of Groundspeak. He is a victim of his own history of poor decisions.
Wow, that's a FAR leap to make, isn't it? Let's use that in another situation:

 

A guy who is known to be a rapist (from past crimes which he went to prison for) is walking down the street when BAM, the cops tackle him and arrest him. Seems a rape and murder were committed close to where he lives? No real proof, just hearsay and the past history of this person. Should we simply make the leap that, since he has done this before, he should be guilty? Maybe just skip the whole process of a trial and execute? I mean, he did this in the past, he surely brought this on himself...he's a victim of his own history of poor decisions?

 

I know it's apples and oranges in many ways, but that's the basic statement you're making.

I believe that's where the phrase, "Round up the usual suspects", is from.

 

If someone has a known history of being a rapist, and one was committed recently, why wouldn't you want to detain him for questioning first? Seems like a great idea to me.

 

People that are against this are probably also against "profiling". :signalviolin:

You ummm...did read my post, right? :laughing::laughing:
That is a very well thought out rebuttal. You make some very interesting points and have given me a lot to think about. My hat is off to you sir! Job well done.

 

I would have needed to make a rebuttal had you followed along and given me a reason to. Since you can't seem to follow along, we're not talking about just detaining him, did you not see that I said we'd just skip the trial etc etc? In my situation, you'd simply say he's guilty and execute, much like it appears happened with the cache in question. Without knowing anything else, it appears Nomex took the word of the accusers and archived.

 

So, if this is how "profiling" works, then I guess you're right on target.

Link to post
If things are as you portray them in your hypothesis, then Superfy created his own problems. If his reputation – the direct result of all the past choices he has made – got a guideline-compliant cache of his archived, (a cache that most likely wouldn't have ended up archived had it been placed by an average cache owner), then no, Superfly is not a victim of Groundspeak. He is a victim of his own history of poor decisions.
Wow, that's a FAR leap to make, isn't it? Let's use that in another situation:

 

A guy who is known to be a rapist (from past crimes which he went to prison for) is walking down the street when BAM, the cops tackle him and arrest him. Seems a rape and murder were committed close to where he lives? No real proof, just hearsay and the past history of this person. Should we simply make the leap that, since he has done this before, he should be guilty? Maybe just skip the whole process of a trial and execute? I mean, he did this in the past, he surely brought this on himself...he's a victim of his own history of poor decisions?

 

I know it's apples and oranges in many ways, but that's the basic statement you're making.

I believe that's where the phrase, "Round up the usual suspects", is from.

 

If someone has a known history of being a rapist, and one was committed recently, why wouldn't you want to detain him for questioning first? Seems like a great idea to me.

 

People that are against this are probably also against "profiling". :signalviolin:

You ummm...did read my post, right? :laughing::laughing:
That is a very well thought out rebuttal. You make some very interesting points and have given me a lot to think about. My hat is off to you sir! Job well done.
I would have needed to make a rebuttal had you followed along and given me a reason to. Since you can't seem to follow along, we're not talking about just detaining him, did you not see that I said we'd just skip the trial etc etc? In my situation, you'd simply say he's guilty and execute, much like it appears happened with the cache in question. Without knowing anything else, it appears Nomex took the word of the accusers and archived.

 

So, if this is how "profiling" works, then I guess you're right on target.

Now you're making even less sense.

 

1 - KBI suggested that SF is a victim of his own history of poor decisions.

2 - You said that a guy with a history of rape shouldn't automatically be arrested and executed for a recent rape.

3 - I said that a person's past behavior is certainly enough to suspect him of something, so at least the rapist should automatically be detained.

4 - You asked me if I read your post.

5 - I made fun of you for not replying to anything I'd said.

6 - You now say that I should have limited my replies to the execution part of your post, instead of making my point that people that have a history of bad choices should be considered when something similar happens.

 

You admitted yourself that your analogy was in many ways apples and oranges, so I was trying to reply to the part that I thought had some bearing on the topic. SF wasn't banned from geocaching. His problem cache was taken out of play. If he could have shown that the cache actually existed then it wouldn't have been archived, right? At least that's how I understand it.

 

In your analogy the rapist didn't get a trial. In the actual thread topic SF was given an opportunity to reply to the reviewer with information that would have probably saved his cache. His past history made his job a little harder than another cacher would have had, but that's his own fault. And if the cache wasn't actually there to begin with (which I seriously doubt it was) then it would have been impossible to show it was there, and that's probably why he didn't prove to GS that his cache didn't deserve to be archived.

Link to post

Mushtang, you're either purposely acting like you don't understand OR you simply can't figure it out. Either way, I believe my post is MORE than clear enough for anyone to read and understand it. Oh well, I'll try once more and then you're on your own...

 

KBI said that the CO is guilty because of past history and his cache archival was his own fault. I asked if that would also be true for a rapist accused falsely, should he simply be considered guilty and executed? Is it getting clearer for you? :signalviolin::laughing:

 

And no, I don't think the CO got any kind of "trial" at all. It appears to me (without any other info added) that the cache was archived even as the CO adamently professed his innocence (or, that the cache was there).

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

The level of proof for archiving a cache is not the same as the proof required in a court of law to send a criminal to prison - or even the proof required in a court of law to win a judgment in a civil suit. The level of proof for archiving is very small. In some cases, reviewer may feel it is in the the interest of the game to archive a cache immediately when a problem is alleged. Even if a cache is archived, it can be unarchived if the cache owner presents evidence that the cache meets all guidelines. In most situations the cache owner is given an opportunity to correct the alleged problems with the cache before it is archived. If the cache owner feels there is no problem to correct, the proper thing to do is to contact the reviewer to present evidence that there is no problem and not ignore the request to fix the problem or post on the cache page that you've checked your cache and there is no problem. In some cases checking the cache and posting on the cache page is enough evidence. I thinks that may be part of the issue here. If the reviewers trusted SF then his enable log would have sufficed - he checked and there was a cache still there to be found. However it seems there were reasons for not fully trusting this cache owner. Had he contacted Nomex or had taken a different approach when appealing the decision, he probably would have been given the opportunity to offer proof that there was a cache. Instead he made the assumption that because there was a cache in place and it had been approved, it could not be archived without someone actually proving there was no cache. There is no way to prove the non-existence of a cache. There is only the evidence that we have that no matter how difficult someone tries to make a cache, some geocacher is likely to figure it out eventually and find it. Certainly some caches might be very difficult so that they are not found after at least 27 searches over a period of two years, but hese are going to be very rare. It may be that Groundspeak and the reviewers have in mind some maximum number of DNFs that can be posted before they consider that evidence that a cache is not there. It may be that they only acted because they had some other evidence. That doesn't really matter.

 

Nomex's post was confusing to Super Fly. He thought it would be sufficient to simply post that he checked and the cache was in place. There was no indication that Nomex was looking for further evidence that the caches was there. So when Nomex archived the cache, Super Fly was upset. His action was to accuse Nomex of acting without proof in archiving his cache rather than in ask what evidence he could offer to show the cache was there. So his appeal was denied, as Nomex acted within the standards that Grounspeak sets for archiving caches. Now Super Fly, still had another opportunity to ask what evidence he could present to show the cache was there. Instead, in anger, he removes the cache and throws away the camouflage that he says he worked so hard on. This could all be true. Or it can be seen as additional evidence that the cache was never there. It doesn't really matter.

 

Ideally this incident could be used as learning experience, both for cache owners and for the reviewers/Groundspeak. Cache owners need to ask questions when a reviewer posts a note on their cache page indicating there is a problem. Find out what the reviewer wants you to do to correct the problem. Reviewers can try to be more explicit in their notes and realize that the cache owner has a different set of evidence about the cache's condition and might be confused as to what needs to be done to correct a problem that is not apparent from their point of view.

Link to post

The level of proof for archiving a cache is not the same as the proof required in a court of law to send a criminal to prison - or even the proof required in a court of law to win a judgment in a civil suit. The level of proof for archiving is very small. In some cases, reviewer may feel it is in the the interest of the game to archive a cache immediately when a problem is alleged. Even if a cache is archived, it can be unarchived if the cache owner presents evidence that the cache meets all guidelines. In most situations the cache owner is given an opportunity to correct the alleged problems with the cache before it is archived. If the cache owner feels there is no problem to correct, the proper thing to do is to contact the reviewer to present evidence that there is no problem and not ignore the request to fix the problem or post on the cache page that you've checked your cache and there is no problem. In some cases checking the cache and posting on the cache page is enough evidence. I thinks that may be part of the issue here. If the reviewers trusted SF then his enable log would have sufficed - he checked and there was a cache still there to be found. However it seems there were reasons for not fully trusting this cache owner. Had he contacted Nomex or had taken a different approach when appealing the decision, he probably would have been given the opportunity to offer proof that there was a cache. Instead he made the assumption that because there was a cache in place and it had been approved, it could not be archived without someone actually proving there was no cache. There is no way to prove the non-existence of a cache. There is only the evidence that we have that no matter how difficult someone tries to make a cache, some geocacher is likely to figure it out eventually and find it. Certainly some caches might be very difficult so that they are not found after at least 27 searches over a period of two years, but hese are going to be very rare. It may be that Groundspeak and the reviewers have in mind some maximum number of DNFs that can be posted before they consider that evidence that a cache is not there. It may be that they only acted because they had some other evidence. That doesn't really matter.

 

Nomex's post was confusing to Super Fly. He thought it would be sufficient to simply post that he checked and the cache was in place. There was no indication that Nomex was looking for further evidence that the caches was there. So when Nomex archived the cache, Super Fly was upset. His action was to accuse Nomex of acting without proof in archiving his cache rather than in ask what evidence he could offer to show the cache was there. So his appeal was denied, as Nomex acted within the standards that Grounspeak sets for archiving caches. Now Super Fly, still had another opportunity to ask what evidence he could present to show the cache was there. Instead, in anger, he removes the cache and throws away the camouflage that he says he worked so hard on. This could all be true. Or it can be seen as additional evidence that the cache was never there. It doesn't really matter.

 

Ideally this incident could be used as learning experience, both for cache owners and for the reviewers/Groundspeak. Cache owners need to ask questions when a reviewer posts a note on their cache page indicating there is a problem. Find out what the reviewer wants you to do to correct the problem. Reviewers can try to be more explicit in their notes and realize that the cache owner has a different set of evidence about the cache's condition and might be confused as to what needs to be done to correct a problem that is not apparent from their point of view.

 

I have most always liked your lengthy, yet educating posts, sir. This one is no different! :laughing: I agree, it could have been handled better by both sides and will likely have to just hope this doesn't become more of the norm. I would like to think a cache should be allowed to exist as long as it follows the guidelines...placement included.

 

I, of course, have never wanted any kind of action taken against Nomex or anyone else, but it would be nice to know that our concerns are being heard! :signalviolin:

Link to post
KBI said that the CO is guilty because of past history and his cache archival was his own fault.
No, he didn't say that at all.

 

But now I understand why you gave your analogy and asked if the rapist should be considered guilty.

 

and then you're on your own...
Yeah, I'm done with this line too. Sorry Moosie, I'll try better to stay on the horse from now on.
Link to post

Just one quibble...

It may be that Groundspeak and the reviewers have in mind some maximum number of DNFs that can be posted before they consider that evidence that a cache is not there. It may be that they only acted because they had some other evidence. That doesn't really matter.
Actually, I think it does matter. One of the tangents in this thread is the complaint about "secret guidelines" regarding how many DNFs are acceptable before a difficult hide is presumed to be non-existent.

 

GS and the reviewers are open about the fact that the reviewers are privy to additional guidelines and interpretations beyond the published guidelines. The published guidelines need to stay concise and readable, whereas the reviewers need additional policies and guidelines so they can handle edge cases consistently. Some are concerned that this incident is evidence that GS has a policy against caches that are "too hard to find", or that have too many DNFs with no Finds.

 

However, in this case, I think it's clear from reading the thread that GS does have additional evidence/information that they are choosing not to share with us. This cache was not archived solely because of the length of time without being found, or the number of DNFs during that time.

Link to post

 

However, in this case, I think it's clear from reading the thread that GS does have additional evidence/information that they are choosing not to share with us. This cache was not archived solely because of the length of time without being found, or the number of DNFs during that time.

 

Or we assume this at least. For all we know, they may have. For all we know, they may have taken the word of a local. We don't know and likely never will...

Link to post

I have seen a few plausible scenarios where GS could have gotten bad info that leads them to believe that SF is a liar and why they would think it's OK to leave Nomex's post calling a paying customer a liar in public but I have yet to see GS say why they believe the information they have.

 

I believe that Nomex, and the GS staff involved, have done an injustice to SF and he is owed an apology, unless they have some sort of proof that is beyond the plausible possibilities for bad information.

Link to post

I can't believe I'm even still reading this thread, much less adding to it, but here I go.

 

What if GS archived the cache just because it had been there for two years, and logged all those DNF's, and never been found? Is that really such a bad thing?

 

Just judging from the photo on the cache page, and viewing the location on Google Maps satellite view, that is one AWESOME place for a cache. So is it good for the Geocaching community to have that awesome site taken up by a cache that no one can find?

 

I understand the appeal of really difficult caches. And I understand the thrill of finding a cache that many others have not been able to find. I understand that a cache in a remote location can go years between finds, and that is not a bad thing.

 

But to have a cache that is in the middle of a large city, in a beautiful park, that gets a lot of activity... for that kind of location to go two years without a single find just seems wrong. Even if the cache WAS there.

Link to post

Thanks for the interesting read today. I've been on conference calls for the past two hours and this made it much easier to pass the time.

 

Being in Nomex's area and having dealt with him many times I'll speak up on his behalf as well as there have been many character attacks thrown his way throughout this thread. Not only do I know him, but I consider him a friend, too.

 

That being said, I've never had occasion or reason to doubt his intentions, character or desire to do the right thing. In past cases, this meant denying a cache or two of mine when he could have easily used the "guidelines" and not "rules" to make an exception for a friend. That took character in my book.

 

Does that mean he (or any other reviewer or moderator) is above reproach? Nope. I think it's been made clear that GS takes action when things go wrong and I would agree. Heck, I've been on the short-side of some decisions and don't always agree with them but I generally feel they make the right call.

 

So here I am defending Nomex's character and reputation. A few have defended the CO's character and reputation. I think almost everybody agrees that there is more to the story and I, like others, am comfortable in knowing that I will never know all of them.

 

I've seen the typical leaps to "this means the end of all caches that are hard, etc." that I would have expected to see here and many analogies that don't serve any purpose - also expected.

 

In the end, I don't see GS purposely covering anything up that others think may have been done wrong. Saying that they are against hard caches, etc. just seems silly to me.

 

While I may not responding to the most recent points, it's all top of mind right now.

Kudos to those of you who disagree but can stay civil.

 

In my mind, this issue is isolated and closed. It's obviously not (and never will be) for others.

Link to post

I have seen a few plausible scenarios where GS could have gotten bad info that leads them to believe that SF is a liar and why they would think it's OK to leave Nomex's post calling a paying customer a liar in public but I have yet to see GS say why they believe the information they have.

 

I believe that Nomex, and the GS staff involved, have done an injustice to SF and he is owed an apology, unless they have some sort of proof that is beyond the plausible possibilities for bad information.

 

May 23, 2007 by MissJenn (627 found)

Following a recent review, Groundspeak has decided to archive this cache.

 

That is the archiving log for Head of the Hydra that was talked about earlier.

 

Why was a canned note like this not used?

That would have stopped this at the start, it would have still left questions.

It does not call anyone a liar and the result of archiving the cache is the same.

 

I agree 100% with Bittsen's post.

Link to post
What if GS archived the cache just because it had been there for two years, and logged all those DNF's, and never been found? Is that really such a bad thing?

 

Yes, that would be a very bad thing. IMHO, that would require a definite change in the guidelines so people would know whether or not it was worth setting up a hard cache.

 

Just judging from the photo on the cache page, and viewing the location on Google Maps satellite view, that is one AWESOME place for a cache. So is it good for the Geocaching community to have that awesome site taken up by a cache that no one can find?

 

I understand the appeal of really difficult caches. And I understand the thrill of finding a cache that many others have not been able to find. I understand that a cache in a remote location can go years between finds, and that is not a bad thing.

 

But to have a cache that is in the middle of a large city, in a beautiful park, that gets a lot of activity... for that kind of location to go two years without a single find just seems wrong. Even if the cache WAS there.

 

People are still visiting the site. Quite a few visited more than once. I have enjoyed quite a few geocaching treks where I got to see something cool but didn't find the cache. In my opinion, the find is secondary to the experience.

Link to post

Hard cache and sockpuppet account at the same time. Log your own finds once every 18 months, or whatever time span fits in the 'too hard to exist' rule.

If you're trying to have bragging rights that you've made your cache so hard that nobody can find it, it doesn't do you much good to log find with a sock puppet account just so it doesn't get archived.

 

I don't believe there is any hidden guideline that says you can't have a very difficult to find cache. But GeoGeeBee has a point. If the cache is so hard that it never gets found what is the point (other than the owner's braggadocio).

Link to post

Hard cache and sockpuppet account at the same time. Log your own finds once every 18 months, or whatever time span fits in the 'too hard to exist' rule.

If you're trying to have bragging rights that you've made your cache so hard that nobody can find it, it doesn't do you much good to log find with a sock puppet account just so it doesn't get archived.

 

I don't believe there is any hidden guideline that says you can't have a very difficult to find cache. But GeoGeeBee has a point. If the cache is so hard that it never gets found what is the point (other than the owner's braggadocio).

 

I don't know, I seem to recall returning 4 times to a small town a few hours away just to attempt a particularly hard cache. We almost had first to find! Sometimes, it's fun just to go and get aggrevated! :signalviolin:

Link to post
Certainly some caches might be very difficult so that they are not found after at least 27 searches over a period of two years, but these are going to be very rare.
Dang!! I really didn't want to post any more to this thread until I had scrolled out of the top 4 posters! :signalviolin:

 

But I do have to comment on this one little teensy bit of your post. Like killing an endangered species of animal, if that sort of cache is so rare, then why would we want to "kill" a cache that seems to be one of them? I think that is why so many locals complained about not having any more opportunity to try to "see" this cache.

 

But GeoGeeBee has a point. If the cache is so hard that it never gets found what is the point (other than the owner's braggadocio).

... and along similar lines:
IJust judging from the photo on the cache page, and viewing the location on Google Maps satellite view, that is one AWESOME place for a cache. So is it good for the Geocaching community to have that awesome site taken up by a cache that no one can find?
Find the cache and you'll probably never be back to that "AWESOME place". DNF it and you very well may. Reason enuf?

 

Toz... your posts on this have really been remarkable. Thanks for the carefully worded insight!

Edited by knowschad
Link to post

 

A third party could know the truth. Be it friends or family.

 

Of course. But if you have two different stories you should probably ask the CO about it, or for specific proof before making a decision.

 

We know there's some correspondence missing, TPTB have reportedly asked it be kept confidential.

 

Actually, we do not know that. According to SF/TPE, the correspondence that was asked to be confidential was sent after he began posting on this forum, after the cache was archived and the decision was investigated: "Also the communications that I posted were the only ones that took place. Soon after posting them I did recieve one other email (which was requested to not be made public) and I am abiding by this request" (Post 230)

 

He also said, "Let me make this very clear---No communications were made about this cache to me, no questions by reviewers, the only thing I ever saw was the same thing everyone else saw--i.e. the posted notes by nomax on the cache page." (Post 94)

 

Even if I assume the cache was not there (and I have no way of knowing), my concerns would still be the same. I also have no way of knowing whether there was additional correspondence before the cache was archived. But as a matter of policy it seems like there should have been. That is the one thing - perhaps the only thing - that could be clarified on these forums.

Edited by Erickson
Link to post

Im still wondering after 19 pages of this, Would this have been such a big todo if one of the local reviewers would have archived it.???

 

Michigan now has 3 reviewers: tiki, derock, and rusty and if my memory serves me right, trippy is still a reviewer too (and the one who would do the dirty work and archive caches) He is no longer from MI and is in FL so why not call on him to do the dirty work????

 

Not trying to piss in anyone's cheerios this morning, but just wondering how it got this far in a state with 3 reviewers (and most caches getting active in under 24 hours) I dont think they are so backlogged that they needed help from California

Link to post

Im still wondering after 19 pages of this . . .

 

I need to adjust my display options because I'm up to 47 pages. Not too bad for a discussion about decisions concerning Tupperware - or a molded facade to a stone brick. So to help get us to 1000 posts . . .

Link to post

Im still wondering after 19 pages of this . . .

 

I need to adjust my display options because I'm up to 47 pages. Not too bad for a discussion about decisions concerning Tupperware - or a molded facade to a stone brick. So to help get us to 1000 posts . . .

 

Well, please, let's not turn a serious (to me) discussion into an attempt to reach a milstone! :P

 

I don't think Trippy is still a reviewer, I could be mistaken though. At any rate, I don't think it would have mattered who archived, if it was handled as it was in this situation, it would still have caused an "outrage". I know and trust each and every reviewer from MI (not saying I don't trust Nomex or Miss Jenn, mind you), I have to believe there'd have been a bit different approach in their handling of this (not saying anything bad about Nomex, just saying the local reviewers would likely have worked harder to not get us to this point). I can understand their wanting to bow out of this storm too, if this is indeed what happened (I wouldn't doubt it one bit), they have to deal with us on a pretty regular basis!!

 

And again, I state that I don't want anything more than an assurance we're being heard here, it would be the least we could get after 19 pages of discussion which they have left to rage and now slowly die. An assurance I can place a nice difficult hide and not worry it will be archived should I make it too hard.

 

As for the comment earlier about why making a difficult hide? While some of you like to play the numbers games, some like to merely have fun etc, some find pleasure in creating the hard to find caches and watching as people try to make the find. I myself want my hides found, I give hints when asked and such, but, we do like to make them look! Anyone who's ever searched for some of our hides knows we're a bit sneaky with our hides, even though we basically use just natural camo. I would be fairly irked to the point of not likely bothering to place another hide should one of mine get archived in the fashion we saw here...

Link to post
And again, I state that I don't want anything more than an assurance we're being heard here, it would be the least we could get after 19 pages of discussion which they have left to rage and now slowly die. An assurance I can place a nice difficult hide and not worry it will be archived should I make it too hard.

You mean like this?

 

In yet another insightful post, Toz captures the sort of decision making that reviewers go through every day. We have to make judgements all the time based on the state of the record and the owner's reaction (or lack of response). Here's an example from today where I was proven right in not archiving a cache in response to insistent cries to do so. Likewise, Nomex made the right decision with the cache being discussed here. If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

That post appeared on page 18. (Bolding mine.)

Link to post

So long as we're quoting Keystone posts this morning, here's another one. Really, the questions have been answered. If there's a need to hear it from your local reviewer, write them an e-mail.

 

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.

Link to post
What if GS archived the cache just because it had been there for two years, and logged all those DNF's, and never been found? Is that really such a bad thing?

Yes, it would.

 

But to have a cache that is in the middle of a large city, in a beautiful park, that gets a lot of activity... for that kind of location to go two years without a single find just seems wrong. Even if the cache WAS there.

It seems wrong if one is the type of person who likes guaranteed finds. "One trip. One smilie." It's right when one appreciates a brilliantly hidden cache in a nice location.

Link to post
And again, I state that I don't want anything more than an assurance we're being heard here, it would be the least we could get after 19 pages of discussion which they have left to rage and now slowly die. An assurance I can place a nice difficult hide and not worry it will be archived should I make it too hard.

You mean like this?

 

In yet another insightful post, Toz captures the sort of decision making that reviewers go through every day. We have to make judgements all the time based on the state of the record and the owner's reaction (or lack of response). Here's an example from today where I was proven right in not archiving a cache in response to insistent cries to do so. Likewise, Nomex made the right decision with the cache being discussed here. If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

That post appeared on page 18. (Bolding mine.)

 

Sorry, that doesn't quite say what I asked. It merely states what Miss Jenn said, we stand behind Nomex.

Link to post

So long as we're quoting Keystone posts this morning, here's another one. Really, the questions have been answered. If there's a need to hear it from your local reviewer, write them an e-mail.

 

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.

 

THANKS Keystone, that is a little bit more reassuring! I was more wishing the upper brass would also step up and make a statement, but.......

 

I'm not saying some mods and reviewers aren't watching, and believe me, I very much appreciate you, MM, all the mods and all of the volunteers behind the scenes.

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. :P

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

Jim

 

Yup! :laughing:

 

We need more Signal!

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

 

:anicute:

 

that is one big Signal..and what a huge cache. That would be a nice surprise after what looks like a deep woods cache hunt.

 

Lol, that's just a regular plushie Signal, not very big (not like the other guy above!). But the cache is a good one! ;)

Link to post

Superfly says he checked the cache, and that it was there.

 

Nomex then archived the cache, stating there was nothing there.

 

Ever since, folks have been correctly interpreting Nomex’s log as calling Superfly a liar.

 

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.
Nomex made the right decision with the cache being discussed here. If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

Therefore, from this point forward, anyone who says Nomex made up a fictitious guideline, or that the cache in question shouldn’t have been archived, or that Groundspeak handled the archival improperly ...

 

... is calling Keystone a liar.

 

 

I'm just sayin'.

Link to post

Superfly says he checked the cache, and that it was there.

 

Nomex then archived the cache, stating there was nothing there.

 

Ever since, folks have been correctly interpreting Nomex’s log as calling Superfly a liar.

 

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.
Nomex made the right decision with the cache being discussed here. If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

Therefore, from this point forward, anyone who says Nomex made up a fictitious guideline, or that the cache in question shouldn’t have been archived, or that Groundspeak handled the archival improperly ...

 

... is calling Keystone a liar.

 

 

I'm just sayin'.

 

With all due respect, please, you're not exactly the one we'd like to hear from and, since you don't know what my intent is, please don't pretend to know what my comments mean. And yes, GS DID handle it improperly, why do you think we've discussed this for 19 pages? ;) The whole issue was handled badly, calling someone a liar even indirectly in public should never be ta business practice.

 

Saying otherwise is calling MANY of us in here liars....

 

just saying. :P

Link to post

Superfly says he checked the cache, and that it was there.

 

Nomex then archived the cache, stating there was nothing there.

 

Ever since, folks have been correctly interpreting Nomex’s log as calling Superfly a liar.

 

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.
Nomex made the right decision with the cache being discussed here. If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

Therefore, from this point forward, anyone who says Nomex made up a fictitious guideline, or that the cache in question shouldn’t have been archived, or that Groundspeak handled the archival improperly ...

 

... is calling Keystone a liar.

 

 

I'm just sayin'.

:P;)

 

... And yes, GS DID handle it improperly, why do you think we've discussed this for 19 pages? :anicute: The whole issue was handled badly, calling someone a liar even indirectly in public should never be ta business practice.

 

Saying otherwise is calling MANY of us in here liars....

 

just saying. :laughing:

Claiming something over and over again for 19 pages doesn't make it true.

 

I'm just saying...

Edited by sbell111
Link to post

Superfly says he checked the cache, and that it was there.

 

Nomex then archived the cache, stating there was nothing there.

 

Ever since, folks have been correctly interpreting Nomex’s log as calling Superfly a liar.

 

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.
Nomex made the right decision with the cache being discussed here. If he was wrong, he would have been overruled.

Therefore, from this point forward, anyone who says Nomex made up a fictitious guideline, or that the cache in question shouldn’t have been archived, or that Groundspeak handled the archival improperly ...

 

... is calling Keystone a liar.

 

 

I'm just sayin'.

:P;)

 

... And yes, GS DID handle it improperly, why do you think we've discussed this for 19 pages? :anicute: The whole issue was handled badly, calling someone a liar even indirectly in public should never be ta business practice.

 

Saying otherwise is calling MANY of us in here liars....

 

just saying. :laughing:

Just because you claim something over and over again for 19 pages doesn't make it true.

 

I'm just saying...

 

And I'm just saying I'll disagree. Are you saying it's OK to call someone a liar in public and that this is how the situation should have been handled? Are you saying this is good business practice?

 

Nevermind, I believe we've covered that for 19 pages. Obviously, you've not been swayed and even more obvious, you're not swaying me. :D

Link to post

So long as we're quoting Keystone posts this morning, here's another one. Really, the questions have been answered. If there's a need to hear it from your local reviewer, write them an e-mail.

 

My question has not been answered: does Groundspeak have a policy of contacting the cache owner with their specific questions or concerns when they investigate a decision on appeal?

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...