Jump to content

Rogue Reviewer?


Recommended Posts

I've been thinking this for days now and for what its worth it was the right decision.I for one one have actually learned alot from this thread regarding guidelines and what it takes to hold all this together.Actually I'm amazed how well it has gone,and how few times..as Moose Bob said so well..people had to be refocused on beating the dead horse and not each other.There is a good group here at the end of the day.
I agree. We're lucky to have Moose Bob and Keysteve both!

 

:P

 

Indeed we are!I also mean the members as well.This is only the second active forum that I have been involved with as far as the page moving more then once a day,compared with the last experince...I'm

very impressed how people here respectfully debate topics......I see some dull axes being carried over

to the next topic sometimes...but still overall....A really great group has gathered here I believe.

Link to post

*snip*

 

This archival was handled badly. Some are saying improperly. Improperly does not mean that the result was wrong, but the method can still be questioned. This extended discussion won’t reverse what was done. I’m not convinced it should be reversed. I think past actions by Super Fly have made him his own worst enemy. Groundspeak decided this enemy needed to be dealt with, and it would go largely unnoticed. The Geocaching community was alerted and has decided the way this was handled is in fact a “big deal”. The only question now is how will they deal the cards next time.

I bolded two statements that I felt the need to reply to. I happen to disagree with both of them. The first statement is your opinion yet you seem to present it as fact. The second statement is once again your opinion yet you make a sweeping statement that the entire geocaching community has arrived at this decision. If the entire community had arrived at this decision this thread would have died many, many pages ago.

 

I have been watching this thread from the beginning and I simply can not find any reason to get worked up over the way the archival took place. My impression of the archival log was that it was worded to deliberately send a message. The information provided in this thread has done nothing but reinforce my initial impression.

 

My interpretation of this event is admittedly skewed by my own view of the World and how I interact with others. I am honest to a fault and I expect the same from others. If I am accused of not being honest I will defend myself to the end. I make lots of mistakes but I do not lie. If I were the cache owner in this case and felt I had been wronged I would make my case long and loudly to any and all who would listen, and I would not stop until I won the battle.

Link to post
Dang, went out geocaching with Alabama Allen and missed the 1K post.

Yeah, me too. :P I spent 7 hours in a swamp today, doing maintenance on one of my night caches.

Got about half of it done.

Whoo Hoo!!

 

One thing I've forgotten and so have a number of other posters is that GC is run by a bunch of geeks.

Geeks or nerds? Is there a difference? One of my snarky series T-shirts says:

"Geocaching: What happens when nerds play outdoors" ;)

Link to post

I think the more interesting question is why the bald dude behind Signal is in his underwear while all around him are in coats and boots. Hmmm? Answer me that! :P

 

He's the most truthful. ;)

 

From someone's sig line:

Truth is like nudity: It is, on occasion indispensable, but it is dangerous and should not be displayed openly. It is truth that gives life its grandeur, but the polite fictions that make it bearable. Jack McDevitt (Infinity Beach)
Link to post

Don't you people ever go geocaching. I was gone all day geocaching. Missed the 1000th post and two more pages of the same thing.

 

I seems that some people are hung up on Nomex calling Super Fly a liar. Reviewers could qualify the notes that post on cache cache pages with words like "it seems that maybe..." or "I suspect that..." Instead they have decided to just post a statement about what the cache issues are without qualifying them. That way cache owner have the responsibility to provide proof contrary to the reviewer's note. How would it seem if a reviewer wrote "It seems from the photograph posted in the log by cacher X that maybe your cache is hidden in an area marked no trespassing. Therefore I am archiving your cache." Instead the reviewers would right "Based on the picture in the log from cacher X, your cache is hidden in a no trespassing area and per the guidelines it is being archived. If you can show the cache is placed with permission and that cachers are able to access it, please contact me about getting the the cache unarchived". Should a cache owner respond on the cache page saying "The cache is not in a no trespassing area", should the review say, "the cache owner would never lie and if I don't unarchive this, it will look like I am calling the cache owner a liar"?

 

Nomex disabled the cache with a note saying that the cache was in need of maintenance because it had never been found. He asks the owner to check the cache and either replace or archive it. Super Fly responded saying he checked the cache. Note he did not replace or archive the cache as Nomex asked. If in fact the cache didn't need to be replaced because everything was in place, he should have contacted Nomex via email as was stated in the note. Nomex then archives the caches saying that there has not been a cache there to find. What to you want him to say. "As I believe based on the fact that there have only been DNFs logged on the cache for the past two years, that it seems that perhaps there has been no cache to find for months/years I am archiving the cache."? If he said that would you stop saying he called the cache owner a liar? Would this thread be 23 pages long? Or should he say "Since the cache owner says he checked the cache, I have no other choice but to believe him since Groundspeak and the reviewers would never say a customer is lying. The cache will not be archived" Do you see that this would make it impossible for a reviewer to enforce guidelines or at least mean that reviewers can only enforce guidelines if they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a guideline is being violated.

Link to post

Hey Roddy, would you please stop distracting Keystone. He needs to get back to publishing caches in his queue. We all know he can't do two things at once. :P

Your multicache, submitted yesterday, was published 12 minutes after your forum post.

 

For your audacity in bringing this to the forums, and for your delaying my geocaching trip today, and because I DNF'd its predecessor, I am going to ask Nomex to archive your new cache in Cass Park.

 

Considering the topic of this thread, isn't that just a bit inapropriate?

Link to post

Don't you people ever go geocaching. I was gone all day geocaching. Missed the 1000th post and two more pages of the same thing.

 

I seems that some people are hung up on Nomex calling Super Fly a liar. Reviewers could qualify the notes that post on cache cache pages with words like "it seems that maybe..." or "I suspect that..." Instead they have decided to just post a statement about what the cache issues are without qualifying them. That way cache owner have the responsibility to provide proof contrary to the reviewer's note. How would it seem if a reviewer wrote "It seems from the photograph posted in the log by cacher X that maybe your cache is hidden in an area marked no trespassing. Therefore I am archiving your cache." Instead the reviewers would right "Based on the picture in the log from cacher X, your cache is hidden in a no trespassing area and per the guidelines it is being archived. If you can show the cache is placed with permission and that cachers are able to access it, please contact me about getting the the cache unarchived". Should a cache owner respond on the cache page saying "The cache is not in a no trespassing area", should the review say, "the cache owner would never lie and if I don't unarchive this, it will look like I am calling the cache owner a liar"?

 

Nomex disabled the cache with a note saying that the cache was in need of maintenance because it had never been found. He asks the owner to check the cache and either replace or archive it. Super Fly responded saying he checked the cache. Note he did not replace or archive the cache as Nomex asked. If in fact the cache didn't need to be replaced because everything was in place, he should have contacted Nomex via email as was stated in the note. Nomex then archives the caches saying that there has not been a cache there to find. What to you want him to say. "As I believe based on the fact that there have only been DNFs logged on the cache for the past two years, that it seems that perhaps there has been no cache to find for months/years I am archiving the cache."? If he said that would you stop saying he called the cache owner a liar? Would this thread be 23 pages long? Or should he say "Since the cache owner says he checked the cache, I have no other choice but to believe him since Groundspeak and the reviewers would never say a customer is lying. The cache will not be archived" Do you see that this would make it impossible for a reviewer to enforce guidelines or at least mean that reviewers can only enforce guidelines if they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a guideline is being violated.

 

I may be reading this wrong but, i think you're saying that a reviewer should be able to enforce guidelines (archive a cache) regardless of what a cache owner says and without any tangible proof. If so, i disagree completely. If a CO says that his/her cache is ok, then solid proof needs to be had before this action is ever taken!

 

I'm curious as to why GS can't give a simple, "Because of privacy concerns, we cannot divulge our source, but we have been provided solid proof that the cache in question isn't and has not been in place for years". Or something along those lines...

Link to post

Hey Roddy, would you please stop distracting Keystone. He needs to get back to publishing caches in his queue. We all know he can't do two things at once. ;)

Your multicache, submitted yesterday, was published 12 minutes after your forum post.

 

For your audacity in bringing this to the forums, and for your delaying my geocaching trip today, and because I DNF'd its predecessor, I am going to ask Nomex to archive your new cache in Cass Park.

 

Considering the topic of this thread, isn't that just a bit inapropriate?

 

Sometimes taking a game too seriously is inapropriate. :P

 

Humor is a universal language.

- Joel Goodman

Warning: Humor may be hazardous to your illness.

Laughter is the closest thing to the grace of God.

Humor is merely tragedy standing on its head with its pants torn.

Humor is an affirmation of dignity, a declaration of man’s superiority to all that befalls him.

- Roman Gary

Humor is mankind’s greatest blessing.

Humor is just another defense against the universe.

- Mel Brooks

Humor is perhaps a sense of intellectual perspective: an awareness that some things are really important, others not; and that the two kinds are most oddly jumbled in everyday affairs.

- Christopher Morley

Every survival kit should include a sense of humor.

Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquillity.

Humor is reason gone mad.

- Groucho Marx

Everything is changing. People are taking the comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.

W. Rogers

Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious.

Humor is a rubber sword – it allows you to make a point without drawing blood.

The kind of humor I like is the thing that makes me laugh for five seconds and think for ten minutes.

- William Davis

Humor distorts nothing, and only false gods are laughed off their earthly pedestals.

- Agnes Repplier

Good humor is one of the preservatives of our peace and tranquility .

- Thomas Jefferson

Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquillity.

- James Thurber

When humor goes, there goes civilization.

- Erma Bombeck

Humor is tragedy plus time.

Humor is… despair refusing to take itself seriously.

- Arland Ussher

Humor is the instinct for taking pain playfully.

- Max Eastman

A sense of humor is the ability to understand a joke – and that the joke is oneself.

- C P Fadiman

Humor is something that thrives between man’s aspirations and his limitations. There is more logic in humor than in anything else. Because, you see, humor is truth.

- Victor Borge

Laughter rises out of tragedy, when you need it the most, and rewards you for your courage.

- Erma Bombeck

Humour is a serious thing. I like to think of it as one of our greatest earliest natural resources, which must be preserved at all cost.

- James Thurber

Humor is a reminder that no matter how high the throne one sits on, one sits on one’s bottom.

- Taki

If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide.

- Mahatma Gandhi

And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.

- Friedrich Nietzsche

Don’t sweat the petty things and don’t pet the sweaty things.

- George Carlin

There is hope for the future because God has a sense of humor and we are funny to God.

-Bill Cosby

"It is better to laugh about your problems than to cry about them."

Jewish Proverb

"The person who knows how to laugh at himself will never cease to be amused." -

Shirely MacLaine

One never needs their humor as much a when they argue with a fool.

- Chinese Proverb

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to post

Keystone said it was a simple matter of Nomex being caught up and helping out busy Michigan Reviewers. Keystone said Nomex simply applied his judgement to an unusual case. Not a big deal. That sounded totally disingenuous to me. Did I just call Keystone a liar? That doesn’t mean that I don’t respect his body of work for Groundspeak.

For the record, I thought your entire post was respectful, though I disagree with parts of it. This is a good example of proper forum conversation.

 

The public evidence supporting my statement includes (1) the presence of other reminder notes and archive logs left by Nomex on other Michigan caches as part of his "maintenance cleanup sweep" through Michigan caches, (2) his explanation in his form note placed on many caches, saying that he is helping out the local reviewers, and (3) the post to this thread from one of the Michigan reviewers.

 

Keystone,

Not to be disrespectful in any way, but the addition of the word "years" to a canned note seems a bit out of the ordinary. At the very least, it did lead to the perception that this was, shall we say, "out of the ordinary".

 

In this situation (and other similar ones that may come up in the future) wouldn't it be better if the reviewer asked that proof be emailed to him as part of the note on the cache page? At the very least, if the owner did not comply, after two weeks, the reviewer archives that cache with a simple, note, no communication received from CO, cache has been archived". At that point, most cachers would at least perceive that the issue was the CO's fault, and that the reviewer was doing his or her job properly.

 

This issue seems to boil down to how the actions of the reviewer and TPTB were PERCEIVED by the general caching public.

Link to post

 

I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.

What would you have preferred? Archive the cache and give no reason? Archive the cache and give a phony reason? Just let the "cache" remain? Archive the cache and reveal all communications between all involved? Archive the cache and give a reasonably respectful reason for the archival? If we are dealing with a phony cache, then the CO started this problem. It puts TPTB in a position to have to do something unpleasant. It is easy to blame TPTB, but they were just trying to deal with a problem created by someone else.

 

If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?

 

See my last post......................

Link to post

I may be reading this wrong but, i think you're saying that a reviewer should be able to enforce guidelines (archive a cache) regardless of what a cache owner says and without any tangible proof. If so, i disagree completely. If a CO says that his/her cache is ok, then solid proof needs to be had before this action is ever taken!

Not exactly. The reviewer would need some evidence that the cache is in violation of the guidelines. That evidence does not have to be overwhelming and does not have to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What the CO says is evidence that can be considered against other evidence the reviewer has. It has not more nor less weight per se than other evidence. The reviewer will evaluate the evidence and may in some cases find the word of the CO to be very valuable. In other cases he might find the shear number of DNFs more of an indicator.

 

It is easier to understand if you look a guideline such as having permission to place a cache. If a cacher says they were approached by store security who asked that the cache be removed, do you think Grounspeak should wait till they have "tangible proof" that the cache was placed with out permission? Should they simply rely on the cache owner's word if he says "I got permission when I placed the cache"? What if a person claiming to be a land owner or land manager contacts Groundspeak and asks that the cache be removed?

 

Now I will grant that these are situations when Groundspeak may feel it is better to archive first and ask questions later. If the cache owner is able to provide evidence of written permission or give the name of someone who provided verbal permission, Groundspeak can unarchive the cache. In the meantime they prefer to ensure that other cachers don't have unpleasant encounters with security and that they don't cross an angry land owner or manager.

 

In the cache where a cache appears to missing (either with strong evidence or just a suspicion based on the number of DNFs), there is not the need to proceed quickly. Had Groundspeak unlimited resources they could investigate each cache and collect evidence to support the suspicion that the cache is missing (or was never there). Instead they have found that by reporting the problem (as they see it) to the cache owner and giving some sort of deadline for addressing the issue, works in the overwhelming majority of cases. Cache owners either fix the problem, present the evidence to show there isn't a problem, or ignore the reviewers request and the cache gets archived. Very few of the archival get discussed in the forum. I don't see any need to throw away the approach that has worked so well. There can be some tweeks made to let cache owners know the way to respond to reviewers if they are asked to fix a problem that they don't agree is a problem.

Link to post

This issue seems to boil down to how the actions of the reviewer and TPTB were PERCEIVED by the general caching public.

How do you perceive those actions? I am leaning towards the idea that this was a bogus cache. If I was a reviewer and asked someone to check on a cache in good faith and I found out I was lied to in that way, I would consider what was said and done by Nomex to be rather mild. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than doing things in a way that will be perceived in a good light by those of us that really don't have the facts.

Link to post

I must compliment Toz on his erudite and clearly written posts. I agree that GS's approach to this cache - archive because they had reason to believe that it might be suspect - is a good practical solution that has worked well in the past and will most likely work just as well in the future. My interpretation of an archive note (it is normally explicitly stated, and for anybody who has been caching a while they would know that) is that the reviewers think there is a problem with the cache; if the problem is fixed, the cache can be un-archived. It is not necessarily a final death sentence. Fixing the problem would in this case be proving that the cache is there, and clearly from the reviewers response to "I have checked on the cache and it is there" stating that it is there in a log was not enough.

 

The CO chose one route - removing any evidence that the cache is there and making no further attempts to prove the cache was there. Nothing wrong with that. That is the route he chose, so that's it. He did not feel the need to take it further, and neither did GS, so the situation is concluded. Practical.

 

Now the rest of us following this topic are left speculating and discussing whether the cache was there or not and whether the process could be done differently...

Edited by the pooks
Link to post

This issue seems to boil down to how the actions of the reviewer and TPTB were PERCEIVED by the general caching public.

How do you perceive those actions? I am leaning towards the idea that this was a bogus cache. If I was a reviewer and asked someone to check on a cache in good faith and I found out I was lied to in that way, I would consider what was said and done by Nomex to be rather mild. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than doing things in a way that will be perceived in a good light by those of us that really don't have the facts.

 

My perception of the events at first was that the issue was handled very very badly. If you red the cache page, the reviewer asks the CO to check on the cache or it will be archived. The CO checks the cache (which most people would perceive as doing what he was asked to) and it is then archived, with a word added to the usual canned note.

The surface perception is that, after the CO did what he was asked to do, that the cache was archived without a valid reason, and , the way I saw it, in a less than professional manner.

 

What has occurred here in this thread has "muddied the waters" in some ways. Do I think the cache existed? On the whole, yes. Do I think the CO handled the situation well? No. Are his explanations for his actions after the cache was archived plausible to me? Yes. Does anything that has come out in this thread alter my initial perception of the issue AS CAN BE SEEN ON THE CACHE PAGE? NO.

 

Personally, at this late date, there is nothing that can be done to alter or "fix" what has happened. The container has been thrown away, so the archiving of the cache can not be reversed.

 

I do think that what can be learned from this issue is that in situations such as this, it would be much better for the local reviewers to have an "outside" reviewer become involved and ask for some form of proof on the cache, be it the solution to a hard puzzle, or photos of the container, be emailed to him or her, and that there be a reasonable period of time (such as is currently given for maintenance requests) be give the CO to comply. There are only two possible outcomes.

1 The CO fails to comply with what is a reasonable request, and the cache is then archived. Public perception would then be that the CO did not do what he was asked to do.

2. The CO sends in the requested information or photos and the cache continues to confound people until someone manages to make a find. Public perception, the cache exists/ the puzzle can be solved, it's just really tough.

Link to post

 

Nomex disabled the cache with a note saying that the cache was in need of maintenance because it had never been found. He asks the owner to check the cache and either replace or archive it. Super Fly responded saying he checked the cache. Note he did not replace or archive the cache as Nomex asked. If in fact the cache didn't need to be replaced because everything was in place, he should have contacted Nomex via email as was stated in the note.

 

First, I'll add to the chours in thanking you for the well reasoned responces. Second, I will avoid saying who is right here due to the overwhelming lack of evidence.

 

My real comment is on the bolded part of your quote. From my reading of the note he clearly asked for the owner to check on it, but I would not say he asked for an email if the cache was good to go. He only reminded the owner that he could contact him, not should. I mention this because it seems to get to the root of the "handled badly" comments. I have no reason to think it was intentional, but as a learning opportunity I would suggest the reviewers be a little more pointed in their comments if they expect a specific responce to a request.

 

Again, I lean toward support of GS position in this and most matters, I just have that one suggestion for future difficult situations.

Link to post
Not to be disrespectful in any way, but the addition of the word "years" to a canned note seems a bit out of the ordinary. At the very least, it did lead to the perception that this was, shall we say, "out of the ordinary".

 

It isn't out of the ordinary at all. Reviewers often make minor tweaks to the canned notes to fit a particular situation. In this instance the cache had not been found for far more than a period of "months", so it made sense to for the reviewer to tweak the wording.

Link to post

 

My interpretation of this event is admittedly skewed by my own view of the World and how I interact with others. I am honest to a fault and I expect the same from others. If I am accused of not being honest I will defend myself to the end. I make lots of mistakes but I do not lie. If I were the cache owner in this case and felt I had been wronged I would make my case long and loudly to any and all who would listen, and I would not stop until I won the battle.

 

So obviously the CO lied since he didn't do exactly what you'd do? I see.........

Link to post
Not to be disrespectful in any way, but the addition of the word "years" to a canned note seems a bit out of the ordinary. At the very least, it did lead to the perception that this was, shall we say, "out of the ordinary".

 

It isn't out of the ordinary at all. Reviewers often make minor tweaks to the canned notes to fit a particular situation. In this instance the cache had not been found for far more than a period of "months", so it made sense to for the reviewer to tweak the wording.

 

I'm not buying this at all. If tis is in fact the case, the tweaking surely was a poor choice at best.

Link to post

I must compliment Toz on his erudite and clearly written posts. I agree that GS's approach to this cache - archive because they had reason to believe that it might be suspect - is a good practical solution that has worked well in the past and will most likely work just as well in the future. My interpretation of an archive note (it is normally explicitly stated, and for anybody who has been caching a while they would know that) is that the reviewers think there is a problem with the cache; if the problem is fixed, the cache can be un-archived. It is not necessarily a final death sentence. Fixing the problem would in this case be proving that the cache is there, and clearly from the reviewers response to "I have checked on the cache and it is there" stating that it is there in a log was not enough.

 

The CO chose one route - removing any evidence that the cache is there and making no further attempts to prove the cache was there. Nothing wrong with that. That is the route he chose, so that's it. He did not feel the need to take it further, and neither did GS, so the situation is concluded. Practical.

 

Now the rest of us following this topic are left speculating and discussing whether the cache was there or not and whether the process could be done differently...

 

Yep, if only the CO could read minds....

Link to post

This issue seems to boil down to how the actions of the reviewer and TPTB were PERCEIVED by the general caching public.

How do you perceive those actions? I am leaning towards the idea that this was a bogus cache. If I was a reviewer and asked someone to check on a cache in good faith and I found out I was lied to in that way, I would consider what was said and done by Nomex to be rather mild. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than doing things in a way that will be perceived in a good light by those of us that really don't have the facts.

 

And, if you knew for a fact you were right, you wouldn't need to leave a snarky remark calling the CO a lir, you could do that in a private email which would also include a nice lengthy suspension of privilege. I'd never call someone out in public if I wasn't capable of providing proof to back my statement, people just might get riled....

Link to post

 

I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.

What would you have preferred? Archive the cache and give no reason? Archive the cache and give a phony reason? Just let the "cache" remain? Archive the cache and reveal all communications between all involved? Archive the cache and give a reasonably respectful reason for the archival? If we are dealing with a phony cache, then the CO started this problem. It puts TPTB in a position to have to do something unpleasant. It is easy to blame TPTB, but they were just trying to deal with a problem created by someone else.

 

If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?

 

How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation? Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place? I mean, if you wonder how better to handle it, would not that have been much better?

 

If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof.

Link to post

 

I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.

What would you have preferred? Archive the cache and give no reason? Archive the cache and give a phony reason? Just let the "cache" remain? Archive the cache and reveal all communications between all involved? Archive the cache and give a reasonably respectful reason for the archival? If we are dealing with a phony cache, then the CO started this problem. It puts TPTB in a position to have to do something unpleasant. It is easy to blame TPTB, but they were just trying to deal with a problem created by someone else.

 

If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?

 

How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation? Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place? I mean, if you wonder how better to handle it, would not that have been much better?

 

If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof.

 

Maybe it's more so the fact that the proof is none of our business.

 

If the cache was not there, I would like to know it was not there. The way they found out about it is none of my business. I've got some pretty good theories on how they came to their conclusion, but it bothers me not. They say they feel the cache wasn't there, they say that they have more information than is being provided to the general public. It's enough for me, maybe not for you... Maybe the only thing Nomex could've done to make it a better archiving was to have worded it like this "As we believe(or as our information has led us to believe) there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. "

Link to post
Not to be disrespectful in any way, but the addition of the word "years" to a canned note seems a bit out of the ordinary. At the very least, it did lead to the perception that this was, shall we say, "out of the ordinary".

 

It isn't out of the ordinary at all. Reviewers often make minor tweaks to the canned notes to fit a particular situation. In this instance the cache had not been found for far more than a period of "months", so it made sense to for the reviewer to tweak the wording.

 

I'm not buying this at all. If tis is in fact the case, the tweaking surely was a poor choice at best.

 

You can buy it or not, but it is a fact.

Link to post

 

I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.

What would you have preferred? Archive the cache and give no reason? Archive the cache and give a phony reason? Just let the "cache" remain? Archive the cache and reveal all communications between all involved? Archive the cache and give a reasonably respectful reason for the archival? If we are dealing with a phony cache, then the CO started this problem. It puts TPTB in a position to have to do something unpleasant. It is easy to blame TPTB, but they were just trying to deal with a problem created by someone else.

 

If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?

 

How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation? Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place? I mean, if you wonder how better to handle it, would not that have been much better?

 

If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof.

 

Maybe it's more so the fact that the proof is none of our business.

 

If the cache was not there, I would like to know it was not there. The way they found out about it is none of my business. I've got some pretty good theories on how they came to their conclusion, but it bothers me not. They say they feel the cache wasn't there, they say that they have more information than is being provided to the general public. It's enough for me, maybe not for you... Maybe the only thing Nomex could've done to make it a better archiving was to have worded it like this "As we believe(or as our information has led us to believe) there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. "

 

Wouldn't simply archiving with just the note that this was investigated and we have decided to archive been good enough?

Link to post
Not to be disrespectful in any way, but the addition of the word "years" to a canned note seems a bit out of the ordinary. At the very least, it did lead to the perception that this was, shall we say, "out of the ordinary".

 

It isn't out of the ordinary at all. Reviewers often make minor tweaks to the canned notes to fit a particular situation. In this instance the cache had not been found for far more than a period of "months", so it made sense to for the reviewer to tweak the wording.

 

I'm not buying this at all. If tis is in fact the case, the tweaking surely was a poor choice at best.

 

You can buy it or not, but it is a fact.

 

It's fact that the reviewers often tweak their statements (I buy that part) or that they know it wasn't there for more than months....I'm still not buying this part. I do buy the part I said too, this was a poor tweaking in any case!

Link to post
This issue seems to boil down to how the actions of the reviewer and TPTB were PERCEIVED by the general caching public.
How do you perceive those actions? I am leaning towards the idea that this was a bogus cache. If I was a reviewer and asked someone to check on a cache in good faith and I found out I was lied to in that way, I would consider what was said and done by Nomex to be rather mild. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than doing things in a way that will be perceived in a good light by those of us that really don't have the facts.
And, if you knew for a fact you were right, you wouldn't need to leave a snarky remark calling the CO a lir, you could do that in a private email which would also include a nice lengthy suspension of privilege. I'd never call someone out in public if I wasn't capable of providing proof to back my statement, people just might get riled....

So obviously Nomex was wrong since he didn't do exactly what you'd do? I see.........

Link to post
If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?

How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation?

How do you know this didn’t happen? Because the cache owner told you it didn’t happen?

 

IF we assume for the sake of argument that the cache was indeed a hoax, then why would we take anything the CO says as fact?

 

Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place?

Don’t reviewers always give a guideline-related reason when they archive a cache? That seems to be a standard policy. I think a blank archive note would have made for more controversy, not less. Don’t you?

 

If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof.

Had better? Or else what?

 

I still disagree with that. This is not a court of law. This is a business.

 

Example: Swimming pool. Privately owned and run, open to the public. BIG sign at one end: POOL RULES. Some of the rules are for safety; others are there to minimize unpleasantness among customers.

 

One day a regular of the pool gets banned. A few of the other regulars pester the manager wanting to know why. "He violated a couple of the pool rules. One says no glass, another says no alcohol, and I have very good reason to believe he violated those rules. I warned him. He said he left it at home today, but then ... well, nevermind, I'm not going to get into the details. Sorry, but you’re buddy can’t swim here any more."

 

Roddy: As another customer, are you entitled to ironclad PROOF at that point?

 

Roddy: For a business owner, what standard of proof do you think is required?

 

Roddy: How much PROOF does that pool owner owe you?

 

If you ask the pool owner that question, he will point to a sign on the wall: "We reserve the right to refuse admission to anyone." It’s his pool. They are his rules. The standard of proof is whatever he says it is. If you don’t like it you can swim somewhere else. He was generous with what little information he gave you; he didn’t have to tell you anything.

 

This is not a court of law. This is a business. Nobody is robbing you of any entitlement rights by failing to defend their actions to your satisfaction. Nobody here denied SF any of his legal rights. Nobody tossed SF into jail or garnished his wages. They simply rescinded a cache listing, one they offered to him only after he clicked through a bunch of "I Have Read These Guidelines" and "I Agree" screens.

 

The same ones you and I clicked, by the way. If you don’t like it – if you no longer agree with the things you read when you clicked "I Agree" – then you can go swim in another pool.

 

That covers the legal standard. What about the practical standard? How much beating of customers over the head with lawyer language can a business get away with before profits suffer?

 

Roddy, the fact that you are still here tells me they have not violated that standard either. The fact that you are griping is not enough; everything makes somebody gripe, and Groundspeak knows that. A temporary swell of grumbling is not enough to indicate a mistake on Groundspeak's part.

 

As Traildad observed, there is no mass exodus. None that I can see, anyway.

Link to post
If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?

How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation?

How do you know this didn’t happen? Because the cache owner told you it didn’t happen?

 

IF we assume for the sake of argument that the cache was indeed a hoax, then why would we take anything the CO says as fact?

 

Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place?

Don’t reviewers always give a guideline-related reason when they archive a cache? That seems to be a standard policy. I think a blank archive note would have made for more controversy, not less. Don’t you?

 

If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof.

Had better? Or else what?

 

I still disagree with that. This is not a court of law. This is a business.

 

Example: Swimming pool. Privately owned and run, open to the public. BIG sign at one end: POOL RULES. Some of the rules are for safety; others are there to minimize unpleasantness among customers.

 

One day a regular of the pool gets banned. A few of the other regulars pester the manager wanting to know why. "He violated a couple of the pool rules. One says no glass, another says no alcohol, and I have very good reason to believe he violated those rules. I warned him. He said he left it at home today, but then ... well, nevermind, I'm not going to get into the details. Sorry, but you’re buddy can’t swim here any more."

 

Roddy: As another customer, are you entitled to ironclad PROOF at that point?

 

Roddy: For a business owner, what standard of proof do you think is required?

 

Roddy: How much PROOF does that pool owner owe you?

 

If you ask the pool owner that question, he will point to a sign on the wall: "We reserve the right to refuse admission to anyone." It’s his pool. They are his rules. The standard of proof is whatever he says it is. If you don’t like it you can swim somewhere else. He was generous with what little information he gave you; he didn’t have to tell you anything.

 

This is not a court of law. This is a business. Nobody is robbing you of any entitlement rights by failing to defend their actions to your satisfaction. Nobody here denied SF any of his legal rights. Nobody tossed SF into jail or garnished his wages. They simply rescinded a cache listing, one they offered to him only after he clicked through a bunch of "I Have Read These Guidelines" and "I Agree" screens.

 

The same ones you and I clicked, by the way. If you don’t like it – if you no longer agree with the things you read when you clicked "I Agree" – then you can go swim in another pool.

 

That covers the legal standard. What about the practical standard? How much beating of customers over the head with lawyer language can a business get away with before profits suffer?

 

Roddy, the fact that you are still here tells me they have not violated that standard either. The fact that you are griping is not enough; everything makes somebody gripe, and Groundspeak knows that. A temporary swell of grumbling is not enough to indicate a mistake on Groundspeak's part.

 

As Traildad observed, there is no mass exodus. None that I can see, anyway.

 

Or...simple. You get a 20 page thread open where many people get upset. Some might even talk with their money. Some might stop placing hides and some might even decide to stop caching altogether. Maybe that's not a concern to GS, but that's the "or else". And no, we're in the court of PUBLIC OPINION. That's where the public decide for themselves how they react to the decision. It's what can make or break a business, it's the rumor mill, the facts don't mean nearly as much as perception.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post
Or...simple. You get a 20 page thread open where many people get upset. Some might even talk with their money. Some might stop placing hides and some might even decide to stop caching altogether.

Do you know of any specific cases of these things happening as a direct result of this thread? I have seen none.

 

Also: Can’t you imagine any scenarios in which the risk of a few people quitting in disgust over information they know to be incomplete might not have been the worst alternative Groundspeak had available to them?

 

Maybe that's not a concern to GS, but that's the "or else". And no, we're in the court of PUBLIC OPINION. That's where the public decide for themselves how they react to the decision. It's what can make or break a business, it's the rumor mill, the facts don't mean nearly as much as perception.

As I said: You’re still here.

 

With your name way, way up at the top of the posting count you are the most vocal of the handful of protesters in this thread; based on your prediction, then, the fact that you are still with us as a fellow customer says a lot.

 

(And I also notice you are back to trying to convince me to agree with you. I’m glad to see you changed your mind. :( )

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Johngie - Maybe after some time now it may be easier for you to understand, my comments were 100% not about yo as I have said many times. You are not the only COP that has a GPS and find's caches in West Michigan. But regarding what was true, and who was at fault, you do not know all you think you do. I could have simply walked away, but as he was local, I tried my best to be respectful and let things pass by. I never have met you or SF/Desert Eagle. SF/Desert Eagle sent me many, many emails of anger and threats. One email he chose to send was clearly disturbing where he listed my home address. My home address where my wife, 2 year old, and 5 year old live. Once he traveled that path, all hope for rational behaviour was gone. So this situation is not too hard for me to believe that it could be how the reviewer has stated.

 

Whoa! Total Drama Island. That's an adult cartoon by the way. No, not that kind of adult cartoon.

 

As a former cyberstalking victim (nothing to do with Geocaching), that particularly disturbs me about having your address listed in an email, a "I know where you live, sucka" sort of thing. I assume this was reported?

 

it was reported. I was told not to talk to him or go to any of his caches etc. He was told the same. That did not do anything for my peace of mind...but that was the result.

Link to post
Or...simple. You get a 20 page thread open where many people get upset. Some might even talk with their money. Some might stop placing hides and some might even decide to stop caching altogether.

Do you know of any specific cases of these things happening as a direct result of this thread? I have seen none.

 

Also: Can’t you imagine any scenarios in which the risk of a few people quitting in disgust over information they know to be incomplete might not have been the worst alternative Groundspeak had available to them?

 

Maybe that's not a concern to GS, but that's the "or else". And no, we're in the court of PUBLIC OPINION. That's where the public decide for themselves how they react to the decision. It's what can make or break a business, it's the rumor mill, the facts don't mean nearly as much as perception.

As I said: You’re still here.

 

With your name way, way up at the top of the posting count you are the most vocal of the handful of protesters in this thread; based on your prediction, then, the fact that you are still with us as a fellow customer says a lot.

 

(And I also notice you are back to trying to convince me to agree with you. I’m glad to see you changed your mind. :) )

 

You must really think highly of yourself if you believe I am in any way directing my comments solely at you, but keep flattering yourself.

 

And, just so you know, I said there were several ways to show our dissatisfaction...you may have missed that? :(

Link to post
Or...simple. You get a 20 page thread open where many people get upset. Some might even talk with their money. Some might stop placing hides and some might even decide to stop caching altogether. Maybe that's not a concern to GS, but that's the "or else". And no, we're in the court of PUBLIC OPINION. That's where the public decide for themselves how they react to the decision. It's what can make or break a business, it's the rumor mill, the facts don't mean nearly as much as perception.

 

So this is all what it boils down to then. And this is exactly what I said like on page 2 of this thread. If anyone doesn't like the way this matter was handled then they should vote with their feet. That is what customers do when they don't like the way a company handles their business. They leave and don't come back and often times they try to convince their friends and family not to do business with company xyz.

 

But they don't just stand inside the manager's office of the company and go on and on and on about the problem for weeks. Pardon the expression here but they either poop or get off the pot.

 

It is quite obvious that new information about this particular situation will not be forthcoming. So that means it is up to all of us to decide what to do. Either we are upset enough about the situation to actually do something meaningful (leave) or we suck it up and move on with our lives (like go geocaching). At this point, this thread seems to be more about venting then doing anything that really has any concrete affect.

 

Venting is all well and good but eventually actions speak louder than words.

 

Disclaimer***I am not directing this at anyone in particular here. But RR's post seemed like the perfect jumping off place for what I wanted to say.

Link to post

 

My interpretation of this event is admittedly skewed by my own view of the World and how I interact with others. I am honest to a fault and I expect the same from others. If I am accused of not being honest I will defend myself to the end. I make lots of mistakes but I do not lie. If I were the cache owner in this case and felt I had been wronged I would make my case long and loudly to any and all who would listen, and I would not stop until I won the battle.

 

So obviously the CO lied since he didn't do exactly what you'd do? I see.........

You can try to twist my words however you want to. I notice you didn't bother to respond to either of my points regarding your post since I was addressing factual information rather than trying to twist words. I stated my opinion and I stated what my personal ethics would be if I were the cache owner.

 

I am not trying to change your opinion or anyone else's. Your ongoing attacks at other posters who do not accept your interpretation probably aren't doing anything to win support for your position.

Link to post

 

My interpretation of this event is admittedly skewed by my own view of the World and how I interact with others. I am honest to a fault and I expect the same from others. If I am accused of not being honest I will defend myself to the end. I make lots of mistakes but I do not lie. If I were the cache owner in this case and felt I had been wronged I would make my case long and loudly to any and all who would listen, and I would not stop until I won the battle.

 

So obviously the CO lied since he didn't do exactly what you'd do? I see.........

You can try to twist my words however you want to. I notice you didn't bother to respond to either of my points regarding your post since I was addressing factual information rather than trying to twist words. I stated my opinion and I stated what my personal ethics would be if I were the cache owner.

 

I am not trying to change your opinion or anyone else's. Your ongoing attacks at other posters who do not accept your interpretation probably aren't doing anything to win support for your position.

 

I must laugh here...attacks? I counter the points of others so the comments are attacks? Got ya, THANKS!! I didn't twist a thing, you said this and I boiled it down for you. If you don't like what you said, you can do something about that, my friend!

Link to post
You must really think highly of yourself if you believe I am in any way directing my comments solely at you, but keep flattering yourself.

Sorry. That’s a mistake I make sometimes when the same person keep quoting me and responding directly to my points.

Link to post
Or...simple. You get a 20 page thread open where many people get upset. Some might even talk with their money. Some might stop placing hides and some might even decide to stop caching altogether. Maybe that's not a concern to GS, but that's the "or else". And no, we're in the court of PUBLIC OPINION. That's where the public decide for themselves how they react to the decision. It's what can make or break a business, it's the rumor mill, the facts don't mean nearly as much as perception.

 

So this is all what it boils down to then. And this is exactly what I said like on page 2 of this thread. If anyone doesn't like the way this matter was handled then they should vote with their feet. That is what customers do when they don't like the way a company handles their business. They leave and don't come back and often times they try to convince their friends and family not to do business with company xyz.

 

But they don't just stand inside the manager's office of the company and go on and on and on about the problem for weeks. Pardon the expression here but they either poop or get off the pot.

 

It is quite obvious that new information about this particular situation will not be forthcoming. So that means it is up to all of us to decide what to do. Either we are upset enough about the situation to actually do something meaningful (leave) or we suck it up and move on with our lives (like go geocaching). At this point, this thread seems to be more about venting then doing anything that really has any concrete affect.

 

Venting is all well and good but eventually actions speak louder than words.

 

Disclaimer***I am not directing this at anyone in particular here. But RR's post seemed like the perfect jumping off place for what I wanted to say.

 

And I believe I gave several examples of how one can show their displeasure WITHOUT "voting with their feet". Some of you seem to think we must leave if this is upsetting to us. Truly, think about what you're saying. I could stop buying coins. I could stop buying TB tags. I could stop buying my premium membership and FREELOAD off the company I disagreed with. But, none of those means I'm "voting with my feet", just my money.

 

....and let's not forget the word of mouth thing...

 

Look, if you're tired of seeing the back and forth, the answer has been given you several times. I don't mind ONE BIT staying here and keeping this thread high on the list so anyone can find it and form their own opinion. That's the best way I can imagine to spread my displeasure...the word of mouth thing! Therefore, I believe I need to THANK you for helping me!! :(:)

Link to post
You must really think highly of yourself if you believe I am in any way directing my comments solely at you, but keep flattering yourself.

Sorry. That’s a mistake I make sometimes when the same person keep quoting me and responding directly to my points.

 

As was just stated in a different post which happened to include my post, it is merely a good launching point. Some of us can understand this! :)

 

:( Oh, and glad you understood your mistake!!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

 

My interpretation of this event is admittedly skewed by my own view of the World and how I interact with others. I am honest to a fault and I expect the same from others. If I am accused of not being honest I will defend myself to the end. I make lots of mistakes but I do not lie. If I were the cache owner in this case and felt I had been wronged I would make my case long and loudly to any and all who would listen, and I would not stop until I won the battle.

 

So obviously the CO lied since he didn't do exactly what you'd do? I see.........

You can try to twist my words however you want to. I notice you didn't bother to respond to either of my points regarding your post since I was addressing factual information rather than trying to twist words. I stated my opinion and I stated what my personal ethics would be if I were the cache owner.

 

I am not trying to change your opinion or anyone else's. Your ongoing attacks at other posters who do not accept your interpretation probably aren't doing anything to win support for your position.

 

I must laugh here...attacks? I counter the points of others so the comments are attacks? Got ya, THANKS!! I didn't twist a thing, you said this and I boiled it down for you. If you don't like what you said, you can do something about that, my friend!

Oh, ok. I said what I meant and you tried a little twist to suit your own position. I have no reason to change what I said or meant. You are free to continue doing what you are doing. I expect that everyone who agrees with you thinks you are doing a fine job. I also expect those who do not agree with you are not been influenced in a positive way by your methods and arguments. :(

Link to post

 

Oh, ok. I said what I meant and you tried a little twist to suit your own position. I have no reason to change what I said or meant. You are free to continue doing what you are doing. I expect that everyone who agrees with you thinks you are doing a fine job. I also expect those who do not agree with you are not been influenced in a positive way by your methods and arguments. :(

 

Then life is truly grand, isn't it my friend! We can all form our own opinions...good deal!

 

If I were worried I were the only one playing the twist a point game, I might think twice about my way of argument. I think opinions can be formed long before reaching this point in the thread...don't you think? I'm just happy to keep this at the top so they have their chance!!

 

Ooops, other pressing business for a bit, I'll be back though! :)

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post
And I believe I gave several examples of how one can show their displeasure WITHOUT "voting with their feet". Some of you seem to think we must leave if this is upsetting to us. Truly, think about what you're saying. I could stop buying coins. I could stop buying TB tags. I could stop buying my premium membership and FREELOAD off the company I disagreed with. But, none of those means I'm "voting with my feet", just my money.

 

....and let's not forget the word of mouth thing...

 

Look, if you're tired of seeing the back and forth, the answer has been given you several times. I don't mind ONE BIT staying here and keeping this thread high on the list so anyone can find it and form their own opinion. That's the best way I can imagine to spread my displeasure...the word of mouth thing! Therefore, I believe I need to THANK you for helping me!! :D:)

 

Truly, I HAVE thought about what I am saying. :(

 

Truly, have you thought about what it sounds like to have some disgruntled customer in your office going on and on and on and on and on and on and on about whatever they are upset about but who aren't willing to actually do anything other than bitch and complain?

 

Very tiring and certainly not productive. But if that is what you feel you need to do, then I guess that says a lot.

 

I never said I was "tired of seeing the back and forth" so please, don't put words into my mouth, ok? That is just plain rude. :D I'm simply suggesting that actions speak louder than words. I honestly don't know why that is so hard for anyone to understand. It isn't rocket science. :)

Link to post
And I believe I gave several examples of how one can show their displeasure WITHOUT "voting with their feet". Some of you seem to think we must leave if this is upsetting to us. Truly, think about what you're saying. I could stop buying coins. I could stop buying TB tags. I could stop buying my premium membership and FREELOAD off the company I disagreed with. But, none of those means I'm "voting with my feet", just my money.

 

....and let's not forget the word of mouth thing...

 

Look, if you're tired of seeing the back and forth, the answer has been given you several times. I don't mind ONE BIT staying here and keeping this thread high on the list so anyone can find it and form their own opinion. That's the best way I can imagine to spread my displeasure...the word of mouth thing! Therefore, I believe I need to THANK you for helping me!! :D:)

 

Truly, I HAVE thought about what I am saying. :(

 

Truly, have you thought about what it sounds like to have some disgruntled customer in your office going on and on and on and on and on and on and on about whatever they are upset about but who aren't willing to actually do anything other than bitch and complain?

 

Very tiring and certainly not productive. But if that is what you feel you need to do, then I guess that says a lot.

 

I never said I was "tired of seeing the back and forth" so please, don't put words into my mouth, ok? That is just plain rude. :D I'm simply suggesting that actions speak louder than words. I honestly don't know why that is so hard for anyone to understand. It isn't rocket science. :)

 

Sir, either you aren't capable of reading my posts or you're just ignoring what I've said. Either way, THANKS for helping me keep this at top. As I did say, I can do far more than simply leave. I believe I seee this done on a regular basis in our country?? We disagree with Russia or China or Iraq or wherever and we stop sending them money. Does that mean we also must pull our embassy and ambassadors out because we obviously disagree? NO? That's odd.....

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

 

I still believe it could have been handled better and hope that similar situations WILL be handled better in the future.

What would you have preferred? Archive the cache and give no reason? Archive the cache and give a phony reason? Just let the "cache" remain? Archive the cache and reveal all communications between all involved? Archive the cache and give a reasonably respectful reason for the archival? If we are dealing with a phony cache, then the CO started this problem. It puts TPTB in a position to have to do something unpleasant. It is easy to blame TPTB, but they were just trying to deal with a problem created by someone else.

 

If this was a phony cache, what would be the better way to handle it?

 

How about archive the cache, email the CO and give a private explanation? Since so many here believe the reason for archival was none of our business, why was it made public in the first place? I mean, if you wonder how better to handle it, would not that have been much better?

 

If you're going to make a public statement that you believe the owner is a liar, you had better back the statement with proof.

 

Maybe it's more so the fact that the proof is none of our business.

 

If the cache was not there, I would like to know it was not there. The way they found out about it is none of my business. I've got some pretty good theories on how they came to their conclusion, but it bothers me not. They say they feel the cache wasn't there, they say that they have more information than is being provided to the general public. It's enough for me, maybe not for you... Maybe the only thing Nomex could've done to make it a better archiving was to have worded it like this "As we believe(or as our information has led us to believe) there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements. "

 

Wouldn't simply archiving with just the note that this was investigated and we have decided to archive been good enough?

 

That phrasing may have been better, but i think people would still be asking why it was archived. I've spent well over 5 hours searching that bridge and came up empty. With the time that was invested, I'm glad to know that the reason is(as Groundspeak believes) the cache was never there.

 

I really think there's a lot more going on with this cache than meets the eye.

Link to post

 

That phrasing may have been better, but i think people would still be asking why it was archived. I've spent well over 5 hours searching that bridge and came up empty. With the time that was invested, I'm glad to know that the reason is(as Groundspeak believes) the cache was never there.

 

I really think there's a lot more going on with this cache than meets the eye.

 

I agree, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Link to post
Not to be disrespectful in any way, but the addition of the word "years" to a canned note seems a bit out of the ordinary. At the very least, it did lead to the perception that this was, shall we say, "out of the ordinary".

 

It isn't out of the ordinary at all. Reviewers often make minor tweaks to the canned notes to fit a particular situation. In this instance the cache had not been found for far more than a period of "months", so it made sense to for the reviewer to tweak the wording.

 

I'm not buying this at all. If tis is in fact the case, the tweaking surely was a poor choice at best.

 

You can buy it or not, but it is a fact.

No it is not a fact, it is your opinion. The part about reviewers often make minor tweaks may very well be true. But the only reason to tweak this canned note in this fashion was to indicate SF was trying to pull a fast one.

 

Archiving a cache page is not the place to do so. IMHO. That makes no sense to me at all.

Link to post

At the end of the day, any archived cache can be unarchived if it meets the guidelines.

 

There were no photos taken and it simply vanished into thin air after archival; an appeal was made without proof.

 

The "tweaks" to the archival note is welcome communication to the people who went and searched hours for it.

 

It was the correct thing to do; if they swept it under the rug and did not reveal why it was archived, it would have caused even more consternation.

 

Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.

-Mark Twain

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