Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Wooden Cyclist

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

I heard through the grapevine that it was archived as a matter of national security. :blink: The cache is located near a suspected "dead drop" site, which is a prearranged hidden location used by spies for the clandestine exchange of packages, messages, payments, and communication devices. Every time a geocacher arrived, it sent a false alarm out to the FBI. This one is well known..

 

:mad:

 

..or it could have been that the owner posted his note that he checked up on it, only a few minutes after the reviewer's note making it seem unlikely that he actually did... AHA!!! So then the reviewer contacts Sarah Palin's secret reviewer's account on the other side of the country to do the dirty work.. :(:huh:

 

I heard Sarah Palin can see the cache from her house.

Share this post


Link to post
Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache?

 

Wouldn't it be possible to find IF the owner can find it? It might be unlikely, but not impossible. Now if it never existed or was totally destoyed before being found it wouldn't be a cache. Sematics? Maybe. But we don't have enough info to put it in any of those catagories.

Share this post


Link to post
Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache?

 

Wouldn't it be possible to find IF the owner can find it? It might be unlikely, but not impossible. Now if it never existed or was totally destoyed before being found it wouldn't be a cache. Sematics? Maybe. But we don't have enough info to put it in any of those catagories.

 

From what I remember, a difficulty 4.5 and terrain 5 cache shouldn't be a 2 minute find. 27 DNFs on a cache like that does not mean it's not there.

 

(I am agreeing with you)

Share this post


Link to post

This does bring up an interesting question...

 

Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache at all?

That depends on how you qualify "impossible to find".

 

After dozens of very experienced cachers have made 27 attempts over the course of 2 years.

 

Now that we've established that... what about my question? Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache?

Now you have to qualify "very experienced cachers" and is that 27 between them or 27 each?

Hmmmmmmm, Pac 10 versus the Big 10 and some got-cha for an old football issue >>>>> Just kidding, sounds like a simple ooooopsie to me

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmmmmmm, Pac 10 versus the Big 10 and some got-cha for an old football issue >>>>> Just kidding, sounds like a simple ooooopsie to me

I don't understand the reference.

PM me an explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
You have no need to know why it was archived. I have no need to know.

I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. While, specifically, this particular archival is a matter for the cache owner and Nomex to resolve, (perhaps with Groundspeak intervention), as a member, (paid or otherwise), of this little club I'd like to know why this action was taken, so that I can try to prevent it from happening to my caches in the future. If this was a simple mistake, (which I suspect), then I'd like to know. It would certainly relieve my concerns, as I'm in the process of building a 5/5 Wherigo night cache that I suspect will only be found a few times a year, if at all. If the Groundspeak reviewers have been told to start archiving any caches that haven't been found in a while, I'd sure like to know the time frame.

 

Either way, this action has the potential to effect us all. Let's bring it out in the open where we can all see what's going on, as suggested by the reviewer on the cache page. Covering up the cat poo by moving the rug over doesn't make it smell any less.

Share this post


Link to post

If I were a paying member, however, I would think it would be part of my business to know that the services I'm paying for are being handled fairly.

Nothing about this is remotely related to the additional bells and whistles of a PM account.

Share this post


Link to post
You have no need to know why it was archived. I have no need to know.

I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. While, specifically, this particular archival is a matter for the cache owner and Nomex to resolve, (perhaps with Groundspeak intervention), as a member, (paid or otherwise), of this little club I'd like to know why this action was taken, so that I can try to prevent it from happening to my caches in the future. If this was a simple mistake, (which I suspect), then I'd like to know. It would certainly relieve my concerns, as I'm in the process of building a 5/5 Wherigo night cache that I suspect will only be found a few times a year, if at all. If the Groundspeak reviewers have been told to start archiving any caches that haven't been found in a while, I'd sure like to know the time frame.

 

Either way, this action has the potential to effect us all. Let's bring it out in the open where we can all see what's going on, as suggested by the reviewer on the cache page. Covering up the cat poo by moving the rug over doesn't make it smell any less.

 

Oh, goodness. I have a few caches that only get found a few times a year, if that. Two that haven't in over a year. Some people don't like tough mysteries or hikes over a mile. And one that's over two months without an FTF. If caches are going to be archived for not being found, Geocaching should let everyone know this! That would change the game dramatically!

Wait a minute. I see lots of easy caches, not found in six months, with a lot of DNFs. But they're still active.

Share this post


Link to post
You have no need to know why it was archived. I have no need to know.

I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. While, specifically, this particular archival is a matter for the cache owner and Nomex to resolve, (perhaps with Groundspeak intervention), as a member, (paid or otherwise), of this little club I'd like to know why this action was taken, so that I can try to prevent it from happening to my caches in the future. If this was a simple mistake, (which I suspect), then I'd like to know. It would certainly relieve my concerns, as I'm in the process of building a 5/5 Wherigo night cache that I suspect will only be found a few times a year, if at all. If the Groundspeak reviewers have been told to start archiving any caches that haven't been found in a while, I'd sure like to know the time frame.

 

Either way, this action has the potential to effect us all. Let's bring it out in the open where we can all see what's going on, as suggested by the reviewer on the cache page. Covering up the cat poo by moving the rug over doesn't make it smell any less.

 

Oh, goodness. I have a few caches that only get found a few times a year, if that. Two that haven't in over a year. Some people don't like tough mysteries or hikes over a mile. And one that's over two months without an FTF. If caches are going to be archived for not being found, Geocaching should let everyone know this! That would change the game dramatically!

Wait a minute. I see lots of easy caches, not found in six months, with a lot of DNFs. But they're still active.

 

Not to worry Harry. Only the difficult caches that aren't found are archived. The easy ones just sit around for years and years. Got one near me that has 2 SBA's against it, still no action. There were a couple of finds after the SBA's and both mentioned the log is mush. A note from one cacher mentions that the cache is probably gone and the CO is not interested in fixing the problems. Bet if it was a 5 star cache it would be archived in milliseconds.

 

Wonder how we can get Nomex to make a sweep up here.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

 

Nothing about this is remotely related to the additional bells and whistles of a PM account.

Spoken with the true authority of a random opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Nothing about this is remotely related to the additional bells and whistles of a PM account.

Spoken with the true authority of a random opinion.

He's correct, though.

 

Please post respectfully, or don't post. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

 

He's correct, though.

 

Please post respectfully, or don't post. Thanks.

I apologize for my snarky tone. It was wrong.

 

I'm a little frustrated though at the way things are going. Why is someone without 'moderator' under their name allowed to post with definitiveness about this without giving specifics as to why this is so? As I mentioned in my first post there seems to be a lot of 'circling of the wagons' going on here. TPTB suggested opening it up here for discussion in the first place. Sure, you have the power to keep everyone in the dark, but why? In this particular issue I don't need to know the specifics, but would it really be a big deal just to have someone (who does know) come in and clear it up a bit? And if so, why?

 

ETA:spelling

Edited by iWikeCake

Share this post


Link to post

but would it really be a big deal just to have someone (who does know) come in and clear it up a bit? And if so, why?

 

As someone has already pointed out in this thread, the Groundspeak staff doesn't work on weekends. Perhaps that is the answer to "why?"

Share this post


Link to post

There are three sources of complete and definitive information about the action taken: Nomex, the Michigan reviewers, and Groundspeak. None of them are obligated to post, however. Other volunteers may know information which we are not at liberty to share. Or, we may not know all the details, in which case we ought not be posting with "definitive" answers.

 

The cache owner also knows information not known by others. He is not obligated to post, either. Generally a decision about listing or de-listing a cache is between Groundspeak and its reviewers, on the one hand, and the cache owner, on the other hand.

Share this post


Link to post

This does bring up an interesting question...

 

Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache at all?

That depends on how you qualify "impossible to find".

 

After dozens of very experienced cachers have made 27 attempts over the course of 2 years.

 

Now that we've established that... what about my question? Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache?

Now you have to qualify "very experienced cachers" and is that 27 between them or 27 each?

 

You are free to define "impossible to find" in any way that makes sense to you. How to define "impossible to find" would be an interesting topic to discuss in depth, but it's ancillary to my question.

 

It seem I have need, as evidenced by your evasions, to point out that my question was serious and is not a rhetorical device to prove a point.

Share this post


Link to post

...If caches are going to be archived for not being found, Geocaching should let everyone know this! That would change the game dramatically!

 

I think this comes under the situation header already alluded to: Let's wait for "the rest of the story" before jumping to conclusions. Or in this case, where the rest of the story may really be none of our business, why not let this run its course?

 

It has been clearly stated that if a mistake has been made or if new information presented to the reviewer paints a different picture then reactivation is a simple process.

 

What percentage of hidden caches have ever been archived simply due to not being found? Not likely more than .01% I suspect.

Share this post


Link to post

hmm from what i have seen.. Cache is PM only = less people looking for it = less likelyhood of a find + obvious high difficulty due to hide placement = current amount of DNF's. what hasn't been seen is a response from the main partys involved to clarify and stop the rumor demon from growing bigger.. time will tell and hopefully all things will be settled in a form that will please the masses.. i for one (as i will be getting a PM soon) hope for un-archival so that my noob tail-end may try my hand at this difficult cache in my next travel through michigan in the spring..

Share this post


Link to post

I heard through the grapevine that it was archived as a matter of national security. :rolleyes: The cache is located near a suspected "dead drop" site, which is a prearranged hidden location used by spies for the clandestine exchange of packages, messages, payments, and communication devices. Every time a geocacher arrived, it sent a false alarm out to the FBI. This one is well known..

I think you are mistaken on the GC# for the dead drop, this is Michigan....These are the dead drops there, yours was in Virginia....Dead Drop #3, Dead Drop #4. and Dead Drop #5 These are the reasons for it's archival, not the Virginia cache!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:ph34r:

 

..or it could have been that the owner posted his note that he checked up on it, only a few minutes after the reviewer's note making it seem unlikely that he actually did... AHA!!! So then the reviewer contacts Sarah Palin's secret reviewer's account on the other side of the country to do the dirty work.. :ph34r::laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I guess I'll add my 2 cents.

 

OK, the whole "Rouge Reviewer" thing is a bit extreme. However, it could be that the OP wanted to give the thread a title that would get people to look. How many of us would have clicked on this thread if the title was "problem with a cache" ? From what I can see, the reviewer wasn't just looking through random caches hoping to find something to archive. He was asked to help out. His actions in archiving the cache, BASED ON WHAT IS KNOWN TO ME FROM THE CACHE PAGE, do seem a bit questionable. An owner maintenance visit was requested, and one was given the same day. How much time passed between the posts is unknown. Giving the CO the benefit of assuming his maintenance log was legit, one would wonder why the reviewer would archive the cache.

 

I know of several caches that have gone for extended periods before the FTF, I own one that went over 6 months before the FTF. The cache in question IS a difficult cache, the D/T ratings would probably cause many cachers to pass it by. From a quick scan of cacher names on the logs, it looks like around 20 people have ever tried to find it. Not a huge number. I have noticed that the CO was maintaining the cache, and did check on it a few times.

 

Now we all know there is more to the story than what we have been told. The CO and the reviewer in question have not posted to this thread, that leaves us somewhat in the dark. It's the weekend, both of those people could well be out enjoying the sport unaware of the storm on the forums. I think it's too soon for any of us to pass judgement on what happened. Let's see what the next few day bring. If the archiving stands, I would like to know why.

Share this post


Link to post
I know of several caches sitting in the wild, unlisted anywhere, waiting to be found.
Hmmm... curious. How could they be found if not listed?

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Why is someone without 'moderator' under their name allowed to post with definitiveness about this without giving specifics as to why this is so?

There's a multi-part answer to that:

 

- People are allowed to post pretty much what they like here as long as they stay on-topic and are respectful. Apart from those two requirements, neither Groundspeak nor the moderators will tell people that they are not "allowed to post" (with definitiveness or otherwise). They might have some knowledge which enables them to say "in fact, you're wrong", but they won't stop you posting just because you're wrong.

- The moderators are not the same as the reviewers (although some moderators are also reviewers). In this case, the true facts are between Nomex (who is not a moderator), Groundspeak, and the cache owner. It's very likely that the moderators of this section of the forum (their names are listed in the "Forum led by:" line on the index page) do not have any more information than anybody else.

 

Incidentally, because of the limitations of the forum software, the "moderator" badge doesn't necessarily mean that the poster is a moderator in the forum in question. For example, under my avatar for this post you'll see the word "Moderator", because I have moderator responsibilities in a different part of the Groundspeak forums. In this section, I am just a regular citizen.

Edited by riviouveur

Share this post


Link to post

In talking with the cache owner, he recieved an e-mail from Groundspeak (which I have recieved a copy of) over the weekend and they are standing behind the decision to archive the cache. They believe that there was never a cache container placed to be found. The cache owner did tell me about the cache container and I am not surprised that it wasn't found. It was a very cleaver hide. I am sure that everyone that searched for the container looked at it, including me, twice. Now that I said that, please don't asked me about the container because I will not give out that information. The cache owner has removed the container and it is no longer there sadly to say.

Share this post


Link to post

Without knowing the rest of the story, it appears Nomex called SF a liar and GS agreed? Sad, really sad. I wonder why SF couldn't have taken photographic evidence to back his word? Truly, if my word isn't good enough, I supposed my pics could be said to be doctored? I hope this doesn't cause SF to stop placing hides...

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post
Or in this case, where the rest of the story may really be none of our business, why not let this run its course?

Normally, I'd agree with this sentiment, however it was a Groundspeak reviewer that asked that this be discussed in the forums. I'm thinking that, in this case at least, "running its course" should include some sort of explanation from those involved.

 

In talking with the cache owner, he recieved an e-mail from Groundspeak (which I have recieved a copy of) over the weekend and they are standing behind the decision to archive the cache.

Dude! Please tell me this was posted in jest. If you are serious, this incident sets a huge precedent for those of us who own caches that are not park & grabs. Kinda scary! By "Groundspeak", do you mean Nomex, or do you mean TPTB in Seattle? I know this is their sandbox, and as such, they get to make the rules, but from outward appearances, the CO followed their rules. Naturally, we can only see what's posted on the actual page, but from my perspective, a request was made by Nomex to check the cache, (which I thought was pretty odd considering that there wasn't a single needs maintenance or needs archived log posted), and as a dutiful cache owner, Super Fly checked it, in a most timely manner. What more can we, as cache owners do? Presuming this is accurate, (I'd still love to hear 'the rest of the story'), the archival decision was entirely arbitrary, for no other reason than a bunch of DNFs.

 

I'd like to know how many DNFs are unacceptable, for a cache with an active, responsive owner? :laughing:

Should those of us with challenging hides create sock puppets just to log occasional finds so our caches aren't archived? :ph34r:

 

John, would you be willing to copy/paste that e-mail, so the rest of us can see it?

Obviously you'd need to leave out all the addresses and such, as dictated by forum etiquette.

 

Thanx!

 

They believe that there was never a cache container placed to be found.

Who, specifically, is calling Super Fly a liar? Groundspeak or a reviewer? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

In talking with the cache owner, he recieved an e-mail from Groundspeak (which I have recieved a copy of) over the weekend and they are standing behind the decision to archive the cache. They believe that there was never a cache container placed to be found. The cache owner did tell me about the cache container and I am not surprised that it wasn't found. It was a very cleaver hide. I am sure that everyone that searched for the container looked at it, including me, twice. Now that I said that, please don't asked me about the container because I will not give out that information. The cache owner has removed the container and it is no longer there sadly to say.

 

I am sadden to hear this. I never had a chance to add my name to the list of those who attempted this cache. The only times this summer I was in Grand Rapids, I did not have caching clothes or was unable to find adequate time to search for it.

 

My post to the cache page last week was more aimed at a general explanation, which I guess we have now received the answer to. All I wanted to know was why it was archived with no apparent communication after an owner maintenance was posted. If indeed there was no further communication between October 4th and November 5th to the CO, then I still feel that the ball was dropped on this. If from the onset it was a suspicion of a container never placed, then it should been asked for a description to be sent to the reviewer of the container and placement. (Note: This may have happened, but it does not appear to have by the confused response from the CO). This does explain the very poignant archive note as well. I will stand by the CO and take their word. I have never seen a case with this CO to not trust them. Other of their caches have received quick maintenance (many times on the same day) when needed, why should I not assume the same on this one?

 

I can see where this can stifle creativity in cache containers. My multi-cache has several people that have been unable to find the second stage and it is only a difficulty of 3. Many have asked for help including a couple around 1K or more finds. Only a fraction mention it in the logs. The stage has never been missing, but it is something different than the ordinary. The creative hides are what helps to keep this hobby interesting.

 

How many times have any of us run across one that should be easy to find (That stubborn 1/1 down the street that is so many people's first find) and could not locate it? Should it not surprise us when we come across a cache from time to time that most people are unable to spot. Think of the first time one of us saw a well-placed custom container that seemed to fit the location so well that we assumed it was real, then look at the picture on the cache page for Jiendo. I could see where it could take a lot of manpower to track down a well-placed container. I hope the action taken on this particular cache does not become precedence or this could take a lot of the fun out of geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the idea of creating sock puppet accounts so we can log finds on our caches occassionally will have to be the new norm? It's sad that we need to PROVE we placed a container just because people can't find it. Even worse is being called a liar. Did GS make an attempt to find this cache? Did Nomex? I've seen it said many a time in here that, just because you can't find it doesn't mean it's not there, doesn't apply to GS or their volunteers, appearently.

 

I suppose we'll now need certified proof (as in verified by a notery public?) before we can submit a new hide? SHEESH!

Share this post


Link to post

I know of several caches sitting in the wild, unlisted anywhere, waiting to be found.

Hmmm... curious. How could they be found if not listed?

I think he's trying to tell us he lost his wallet somewhere in the woods.

Share this post


Link to post

Does the off limits (bridges) apply here? The guidelines say "highway bridge". Is this an active or abandoned bridge? What exactly does "highway bridge" mean?

Edited by Plasma Boy

Share this post


Link to post

Does the off limits (bridges) apply here? The guidelines say "highway bridge". Is this an active or abandoned bridge? What exactly does "highway bridge" mean?

 

The bridge is an old rail bridge, though I believe it is now used as a pedestrian bridge.

Share this post


Link to post

Since speculation seems to be all the rage in this thread, I'll toss mine out there:

 

1. There was more communication between GS and the CO than is evident. It may be that some of the reviewers know of this but would rather leave it to the CO to explain to avoid giving away future hides.

 

2. Maybe a dispute over what constitutes a container?

 

Just speculation mind you, worth only what you paid for it.

Share this post


Link to post

My wildly inaccurate guess is that the cache was never there to begin with. The listing was created for an impossible cache.

 

The CO owner has "Checked on" this cache several times as seen in the cache records.

But this is a 5 star? He noted that he was in the area and decided to check on it.

 

I don't know about you but I don't keep waders or rope or anything required to find a 5 star in my truck. It is highly unlikely that he was on the way home from work and decided to walk through a river just to "check" a cache.

 

Maybe the local reviewer started getting tips about it not being there and set it up for another reviewer to place a note that would require the CO to check the cache.

 

One or more people could have keep an eye on the area all day and when the CO posted a note saying it was good, but no one visited the location they knew it was a scam.

 

The reviewers might not want to tell the whole story on the cache page to keep the CO's reputation intact.

 

That’s my conspiracy theory, no facts or basis for reasoning. Feed the trolls!

Share this post


Link to post

This is the email that I sent out to appeal:

 

 

To whom at may concern,

I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot. I recieved an email alerting me to the fact that Nomex placed it on temporary hold on oct 4, since this location is close to home I went and checked it out. The cache container was still in the same location as I had placed it and was holding up in great shape. On the same day I posted a note showing that I had checked the cache and all was well. On november 5 Nomex archived the cache with no DNF's or logs stating that anyone had even attempted to find the cache. The cache location can be hard to access depending on how deep the water is at the time, this is stated in the cache description. I feel that this cache has been unjustly archived and would like it reinstated as an active cache. I know that around the world there are other caches placed that have not been found for more than double the length of time that my cache not been found. I did not know that there was a time limit that a cache had to be found in to remain in the active caches. I have checked the cache out whenever there is a question as to whethere or not it is still there. Do I need to just show people the cache?? Then it would not be considered a geocache but just a container with a peice of paper to sign. I think if you look at the cache page you will agree that all who have posted notes are urging to cache to be reinstated and left alone. There have been no notes loged agreeing with the archiving of this cache. Please reinstate my cache and have it left alone, I am an active cacher and will archive it on my own when there is a problem or it gets destroyed. Nomex has taken the fun and challenge out of this cache for everyone involved.

Thank you for your time - Scott

Share this post


Link to post

Here is what I got back first:

 

Hello Super Fly.

 

 

RE: GC171MH Super Fly #30 "Jiendo"

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...1b-2ffbf8ec02bc

 

 

I have just been asked to look into this cache. I have not yet had time to do my investigation. I have noticed that the cache page is being used as a forum for discussion in the meantime, and you know of course that this is not a good use of cache pages. We have an actual forum for forum discussions. J

 

I have locked the cache page – this is just a TEMPORARY measure to give me some time to look into it. Thank you for your patience. I’ll unlock it soon.

 

 

---------------------------

Jenn Seva

jenn@Groundspeak.com

 

P 206.302.7721

F 206.374.8161

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

www.geocaching.com

www.Waymarking.com

www.Wherigo.com

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the second responce I got:

 

Super Fly,

 

Hello again.

 

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

 

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

 

Regards,

-----

Jenn Seva

Groundspeak, Inc.

The Language of Location

 

http://www.Groundspeak.com

Share this post


Link to post

Here was my final responce:

 

The cache was a mold of one of the bricks supporting the bridge with a logbook in a small jewelry ziplock bag molded into the back. It was stuck to the existing brick with poster putty and coated with stonecreations paint. The picture in the cache page shows the bricks supporting the bridge. Yes there was a cache there and yes it took forever to get the mold thin enough to not break with the logbook behind it. I spent so much time on this cache only to have Groundspeak tell me that there was no cache placed - that's very disappointing, almost bullyish behaviour on groundspeaks part.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand Groundspeak's decision.

 

(And yes, I will stipulate that this is not an issue of national security.)

Share this post


Link to post

Here was my final responce:

 

The cache was a mold of one of the bricks supporting the bridge with a logbook in a small jewelry ziplock bag molded into the back. It was stuck to the existing brick with poster putty and coated with stonecreations paint. The picture in the cache page shows the bricks supporting the bridge. Yes there was a cache there and yes it took forever to get the mold thin enough to not break with the logbook behind it. I spent so much time on this cache only to have Groundspeak tell me that there was no cache placed - that's very disappointing, almost bullyish behaviour on groundspeaks part.

So let me get this straight - you expected cachers to remove bricks that (appear to) support this bridge in order to make the find??

Share this post


Link to post

Re-list it with a photo attached to the reviewer note. If it falls within the guidelines it should get published. I suggest you edit the spoilers out of your recent post.

Share this post


Link to post

And none of the experienced cachers who posted all of those DNF's on that cache never thought to check the bricks, and never saw a cache in a false front or a brick? :laughing: Stunning!

Edited by wimseyguy

Share this post


Link to post

I will never place another cache for this sport. The cache was is plain view for two years and Groundspeak with their mighty wisdom tells me that I am a liar and that I never placed a cache.

 

 

P.S. DeRock I never recieved one email from a cacher complaining to me about the cache. Not sure why this one would be considered so sensitivethat we all (reviewers and Groundspeak) feel the need to chat about it behind my back. The reviewers and I live close enough to each other that they could have said show me a cache at this location and the case is closed. What did happen here is a lot of backroom dealings again without the cache owner being made aware of anything until the notes are postred on the cache page.

 

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.

 

I'll never even get an apology from anyone for trashing not only me but a great (very findable) cache.

 

As the name of the cache translates into english "THE END"

Share this post


Link to post

You spent all that time creating a custom cache for a specific location and your NOT going to try and re-publish it?

 

If it falls within the guidelines they cannot refuse to publish it. Just post a picture of it to the reviewers note.

 

By refusing to try again you are fueling the fire that it was never there!

Share this post


Link to post

This does bring up an interesting question...

 

Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache at all?

That depends on how you qualify "impossible to find".

 

After dozens of very experienced cachers have made 27 attempts over the course of 2 years.

 

Now that we've established that... what about my question? Is an impossible to find geocache really a geocache?

Now you have to qualify "very experienced cachers" and is that 27 between them or 27 each?

 

You are free to define "impossible to find" in any way that makes sense to you. How to define "impossible to find" would be an interesting topic to discuss in depth, but it's ancillary to my question.

 

It seem I have need, as evidenced by your evasions, to point out that my question was serious and is not a rhetorical device to prove a point.

It is not evasion, not in the slightest bit, it was intended to lead you to the point where you definitively define "imposable". So far you have given an awfully weak definition.

My definition of imposable to find would simply mean that there is no cache at GZ. If there is one, then simply put "It is not imposable to find".

I'll be honest and admit I was hoping you would give a number example to define experienced cacher, so I could pick apart the flaws. It would have to be a numerical definition because we don't know the true skill of the cacher unless we have personally been with them on multiple hunts. Right?

Share this post


Link to post

Wow... :rolleyes:

As a law enforcement officer, I conduct investigations every day. A key element is always getting both sides of a dispute. Sounds like Groundspeak only got one side, probably from some disgruntled local who couldn't find a wondrously clever hide. I hope that local doesn't set their sites on any of my hides. Not sure what would constitute "proof" in the eyes of TPTB. I suppose I could pay to have a reviewer transported to ground zero, then hold their hand, leading them to, and handing them the cache?

Would that suffice? :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Here was my final responce:

 

The cache was a mold of one of the bricks supporting the bridge with a logbook in a small jewelry ziplock bag molded into the back. It was stuck to the existing brick with poster putty and coated with stonecreations paint. The picture in the cache page shows the bricks supporting the bridge. Yes there was a cache there and yes it took forever to get the mold thin enough to not break with the logbook behind it. I spent so much time on this cache only to have Groundspeak tell me that there was no cache placed - that's very disappointing, almost bullyish behaviour on groundspeaks part.

So let me get this straight - you expected cachers to remove bricks that (appear to) support this bridge in order to make the find??

I wouldn't say that. I'd say he wants them to spot the false brick. From what I can see in the photo, the bricks are mortared in place and a real one shouldn't budge anyway.

 

Sounds like an awesome cache to me! I'd love to see it added to the Cool Cache Containers thread!

Share this post


Link to post

I will never place another cache for this sport. The cache was is plain view for two years and Groundspeak with their mighty wisdom tells me that I am a liar and that I never placed a cache.

 

 

P.S. DeRock I never recieved one email from a cacher complaining to me about the cache. Not sure why this one would be considered so sensitivethat we all (reviewers and Groundspeak) feel the need to chat about it behind my back. The reviewers and I live close enough to each other that they could have said show me a cache at this location and the case is closed. What did happen here is a lot of backroom dealings again without the cache owner being made aware of anything until the notes are postred on the cache page.

 

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.

 

I'll never even get an apology from anyone for trashing not only me but a great (very findable) cache.

 

As the name of the cache translates into english "THE END"

 

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth Scott, I can't believe GS not only called you a liar, but also slaps your wrist for being very creative. Wow, talk about the end of creativity....I guess GS now wants only FINDABLE caches published? Nomex has a LOT of work ahead then, there are plenty around that can't be found.

 

I'm curious as to how this works for other caches. Say one of mine goes missing for an extended period of time, do I then need to worry that someone will archive it since it can't be found? Maybe they'll use the same excuse and slap my wrist for not replacing the cache?

Share this post


Link to post

wow

awesome cache container. Love hides like this! Hope for some more in washington state along these lines! Bummed to see where this has gone though...

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

×
×
  • Create New...