Jump to content

Rogue Reviewer?


Recommended Posts

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

Yes, it would.

 

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

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

 

I appreciate a brilliantly hidden cache in a nice location. But if no one ever finds it, it's hard to appreciate.

 

There's really no difference between a cache that is so difficult no one can find it, and a cache that doesn't actually exist. It's only when someone finds it that he can say "Wow, that was really well done."

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.

I don't think that would have changed the public spectacle. The simple act of archiving it is a public act. The cache would have been archived with no reason. People would want to know why. The CO or a friend still may have posted to the forum.

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.

What might be the fallout if GS allows a hoax cache to remain? Then there is another and another. Then you end up with a different even worse problem.

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 with slubersix. Having spent a few hours looking for the cache (and now a few more on this knotted up thread of a discussion), I wish I knew a few more details, but am glad to know their opinion (regardless of how rightly or poorly worded).

But just as I decide trust a CO when they say a cache is there, I now have to decide if I trust or doubt that GS had more than just a few whiners complaining to give them reason to believe it really was not there.

Edited by MBQS
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.

What might be the fallout if GS allows a hoax cache to remain? Then there is another and another. Then you end up with a different even worse problem.

 

Unlike now seeing at least 3 similar instances, I have NEVER heard of a CO faking a placement. I've seen it accused here, but I can't say 100% whether it was a fake or not.

 

Truly, and think about this for a second, if the CO faked the hide, lied repeatedly on the cache page, to a reviewer AND to Miss Jenn, has a history of bad behavior and still came in here and spouted more lies after the fact...what kind of punishment would that warrant? A note calling him a liar and telling him to not do it again??

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

Yes, it would.

 

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

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

 

I appreciate a brilliantly hidden cache in a nice location. But if no one ever finds it, it's hard to appreciate.

 

There's really no difference between a cache that is so difficult no one can find it, and a cache that doesn't actually exist. It's only when someone finds it that he can say "Wow, that was really well done."

 

I can think of one difference....the hard hide can be found unlike the fake. You at least have a chance with the hard hide.

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.

What might be the fallout if GS allows a hoax cache to remain? Then there is another and another. Then you end up with a different even worse problem.

 

Unlike now seeing at least 3 similar instances, I have NEVER heard of a CO faking a placement. I've seen it accused here, but I can't say 100% whether it was a fake or not.

 

Truly, and think about this for a second, if the CO faked the hide, lied repeatedly on the cache page, to a reviewer AND to Miss Jenn, has a history of bad behavior and still came in here and spouted more lies after the fact...what kind of punishment would that warrant? A note calling him a liar and telling him to not do it again??

Considering what that might do to his local reputation, Maybe.

Link to post

I just can't believe that some people still blindly follow "leaders" and not question authority? If someone in power says it is so, does that really mean it is so?

 

I suppose this works out well for cult leaders...

 

I respect the mods and reviewers at GS but they are not infallible and therefore need to be held in check by the very people they represent and govern.

 

If your mother told you the world was flat, would you stick to that? just because she told you so?

 

My opinion on the cache means nothing but, I value the facts from admin... but just the facts.

 

Without questioning authority, the world would be run by dictatorships.

 

Questioning does not mean disrespect. I for one, like to know when I am wrong so I can be educated.

Nothing wrong with learning.

Link to post

I suppose this works out well for cult leaders...

 

Without questioning authority, the world would be run by dictatorships.

 

The exception here for you to consider is that throughout the almost 10 years this game has been online (and throughout Team Sagefox's nine years of experience) there have been NO situations where your cult and dictatorship analogies would even remotely apply.

 

Mind you, one or two instances occasionally where a handful of folks believe something terrible has been done by gc.com does not mean that either of your concerns raise rise to the level of even an amber alert.

 

Geocaching will NOT turn into a rouge cult nor will management turn into dictators.

 

Once again it is very clear that the sky is NOT falling.

Link to post

I just can't believe that some people still blindly follow "leaders" and not question authority? If someone in power says it is so, does that really mean it is so?

 

I suppose this works out well for cult leaders...

 

I respect the mods and reviewers at GS but they are not infallible and therefore need to be held in check by the very people they represent and govern.

 

If your mother told you the world was flat, would you stick to that? just because she told you so?

 

My opinion on the cache means nothing but, I value the facts from admin... but just the facts.

 

Without questioning authority, the world would be run by dictatorships.

 

Questioning does not mean disrespect. I for one, like to know when I am wrong so I can be educated.

Nothing wrong with learning.

If TPTB say it is so, does that mean it must not be so? Blindly following is not fixed by blindly questioning. If your mother told you to come in out of the rain, would you stay out there just because she told you not to? Never trusting anyone or anything would not make for a better world.

Link to post

I suppose this works out well for cult leaders...

 

Without questioning authority, the world would be run by dictatorships.

 

The exception here for you to consider is that throughout the almost 10 years this game has been online (and throughout Team Sagefox's nine years of experience) there have been NO situations where your cult and dictatorship analogies would even remotely apply.

 

Mind you, one or two instances occasionally where a handful of folks believe something terrible has been done by gc.com does not mean that either of your concerns raise rise to the level of even an amber alert.

 

Geocaching will NOT turn into a rouge cult nor will management turn into dictators.

 

Once again it is very clear that the sky is NOT falling.

 

Did I even imply that? you need to learn comprehension.

Link to post

I just can't believe that some people still blindly follow "leaders" and not question authority? If someone in power says it is so, does that really mean it is so?

 

I suppose this works out well for cult leaders...

 

I respect the mods and reviewers at GS but they are not infallible and therefore need to be held in check by the very people they represent and govern.

 

If your mother told you the world was flat, would you stick to that? just because she told you so?

 

My opinion on the cache means nothing but, I value the facts from admin... but just the facts.

 

Without questioning authority, the world would be run by dictatorships.

 

Questioning does not mean disrespect. I for one, like to know when I am wrong so I can be educated.

Nothing wrong with learning.

If TPTB say it is so, does that mean it must not be so? Blindly following is not fixed by blindly questioning. If your mother told you to come in out of the rain, would you stay out there just because she told you not to? Never trusting anyone or anything would not make for a better world.

 

You sir missed the point by a mile. My mother telling me something that might happen.... nm... I will shut up now... and leave this thread... you can lead a horse to water.... but....

Link to post
I

Without questioning authority, the world would be run by dictatorships.

Questioning does not mean disrespect. I for one, like to know when I am wrong so I can be educated.

Nothing wrong with learning.

Who told you that you should question authority, anyway? Have you ever thought about that? :(
Link to post

I read part of this thread when it started. Now it is very long and the recent posts do not say what the upshot of the matter was. Having now read some of the recent posts, I'm sure I don't want to read the whole thing. So, would someone give me a short summary of what transpired and why?

 

Absolutely nothing has changed. It just goes round and round and round...............

Link to post
So, would someone give me a short summary of what transpired and why?

Sure! Six pages ago, I posted an observation:

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

 

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

In between then and now, my observation has been demonstrated to be accurate.

:):D:P:(:D:D:P:)

Link to post
So, would someone give me a short summary of what transpired and why?

Sure! Six pages ago, I posted an observation:

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

 

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

In between then and now, my observation has been demonstrated to be accurate.

:):D:P:(:D:D:P:)

I think there would also be a group who would believe that in this case TPTB acted inappropriately and will not change their opinion. There is also a group who would believe TPTB acted appropriately and will not change their opinion. Until such time as additional factual evidence is presented which could cause either group to change their opinion. I love diversity! :D

Link to post
So, would someone give me a short summary of what transpired and why?

Sure! Six pages ago, I posted an observation:

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

 

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

In between then and now, my observation has been demonstrated to be accurate.

:P:D:):(:P:D:D:)

I think there would also be a group who would believe that in this case TPTB acted inappropriately and will not change their opinion. There is also a group who would believe TPTB acted appropriately and will not change their opinion. Until such time as additional factual evidence is presented which could cause either group to change their opinion. I love diversity! :D

 

These two comments are pretty much dead on. It's fairly obvious no one's minds will be swayed in any way, the only thing that could stop this debate (aside from locking by the mods of course lol) would be for TPTB to make a statement. It's also fairly obvious they won't (TPTB), so what's left is what we have here, bickering and potshots. Some telling those who feel like myself that I need to lead with my feet or shut up, some (like myself) telling those people that reading this thread is an option...

 

Diversity...the spice of forums!! :):D Oh well, this too shall pass.

 

Meet you guys in the next "debate"....who's bringing the popcorn? :D btw, this doesn't mean I'm not still concerned, just that I grow tired.

Link to post
I read part of this thread when it started. Now it is very long and the recent posts do not say what the upshot of the matter was. Having now read some of the recent posts, I'm sure I don't want to read the whole thing. So, would someone give me a short summary of what transpired and why?
  • A cache was archived because the reviewer believed it to be non-existent.
  • The cache owner appealed, sort of. He made no attempt to prove that it was actually 'real'.
  • A thread was started complaining that this action was taken by a 'rogue' out-of-state reviewer.
  • The cache owner insists that the cache was real, but there are numerous inconsistencies in his various statements. He shares some email correspondence that he had with TPTB.
  • TPTB share that the reviewer was not rogue and that the cache was archived appropriately. It is further hinted that there were additional communications that will not be released due to confidentiality issues.
  • Some posters are upset because the reviewer stated in his archival note that the cache had not been present for months or years. Other posters are pleased that this information was given and believe that cache owners who perpetrate this type of fraud on the community should be banned.
  • Pages and pages of blather follow.

Link to post
  • TPTB share that the reviewer was not rogue and that the cache was archived appropriately. It is further hinted that there were additional communications that will not be released due to confidentiality issues.

This is true. And so you should add...

  • Some posters keep insisting that TPTB haven't spoken up, when indeed they have. Several times.

:(

Link to post
These two comments are pretty much dead on. It's fairly obvious no one's minds will be swayed in any way
My mind switches back and forth on virtually every post.

 

It's been a rough couple of weeks.

That means you are keeping an open mind and considering the other side's commentary instead of stating and restating your opinion... that is not allowed here! :D:)

Link to post
I think there would also be a group who would believe that in this case TPTB acted inappropriately and will not change their opinion. There is also a group who would believe TPTB acted appropriately and will not change their opinion. Until such time as additional factual evidence is presented which could cause either group to change their opinion. I love diversity
\

 

There is also a group who realize that they don't have the facts necessary to reach a conclusion and don't think the facts are really any of their beeswax anyway.

Link to post
There's really no difference between a cache that is so difficult no one can find it, and a cache that doesn't actually exist.

Absolutely there is a difference. One, there is a cache there waiting for someone smart/persistent/good enough to find it. The another there isn't.

 

Using your line of thinking no cache is as good as one that doesn't exist until that person finds it. Face it. The same scenario happens every day with caches that go missing. You don't know if the cache exists or not until it is found. In this case, it was never found. By anyone. Did it exist or not? We don't know. In reality, unless the super secret insider got his information from the horse's mouth, they don't know.

 

Just wait until you think one of your caches is missing. You take it offline in preparation for a replacement only to have someone claim they found it after you check to see that it's not in its resting spot. It's happened to me on at least two caches. It goes like this: folks put the cache back in a different spot. The next folks post DNFs. A previous finder might check on it and report it's not there. You go check on it and it's not there. You take it offline. A finder posts a find. You question the find as false. They describe exactly where they found it. You follow their directions and there it is. Now you, as the owner, thought your own cache didn't exist when, in fact, it did!

 

Now, let's talk about if a cache that is not found is no better than one that doesn't exist.

Link to post
There's really no difference between a cache that is so difficult no one can find it, and a cache that doesn't actually exist.

Absolutely there is a difference. One, there is a cache there waiting for someone smart/persistent/good enough to find it. The another there isn't.

 

Using your line of thinking no cache is as good as one that doesn't exist until that person finds it. Face it. The same scenario happens every day with caches that go missing. You don't know if the cache exists or not until it is found. In this case, it was never found. By anyone. Did it exist or not? We don't know. In reality, unless the super secret insider got his information from the horse's mouth, they don't know.

 

Just wait until you think one of your caches is missing. You take it offline in preparation for a replacement only to have someone claim they found it after you check to see that it's not in its resting spot. It's happened to me on at least two caches. It goes like this: folks put the cache back in a different spot. The next folks post DNFs. A previous finder might check on it and report it's not there. You go check on it and it's not there. You take it offline. A finder posts a find. You question the find as false. They describe exactly where they found it. You follow their directions and there it is. Now you, as the owner, thought your own cache didn't exist when, in fact, it did!

 

Now, let's talk about if a cache that is not found is no better than one that doesn't exist.

 

You bet, I had this happen and ended up with 2 containers at the same spot. A very lucky cacher stumbled on both!

Link to post
There's really no difference between a cache that is so difficult no one can find it, and a cache that doesn't actually exist.

Absolutely there is a difference. One, there is a cache there waiting for someone smart/persistent/good enough to find it. The another there isn't.

 

I went back and bolded the part of my comment that you might have missed.

 

If a cache is so difficult that no one can find it, it is equivalent to a cache that does not exist. "No one can find it" would exclude anyone being smart/persistent/good enough to find it.

 

Schrödinger's cache, if you will. If a cache falls in the forest and no one finds it, is it really there? Like Zen, the concept is so simple that it is difficult for some to grasp.

 

Several times in this thread someone has mentioned the cache at the bottom of the ocean. Well, what's the point of that? I could flush a micro down my toilet and post the coordinates for my septic tank, but what's the point of that?

 

The point of this game, if it has one, is NOT to create caches so hard that no mere mortal can find them. Any fool can do that. Weight down an ammo box and toss it overboard, or toss a blinkie into a swamp. But it takes real skill to create a cache that CAN be found, but only after extreme effort.

 

A great cache provides an "aha" moment. An impossible cache only creates frustration.

 

Did Jiendo really exist, or was it a hoax? It doesn't matter. If it had been found, it would have provided the finder with a tremendous "aha" moment. But it was not found, and now it never will be found. So, functionally, it is identical to a cache that never was.

Link to post

 

The point of this game, if it has one, is NOT to create caches so hard that no mere mortal can find them. Any fool can do that. Weight down an ammo box and toss it overboard, or toss a blinkie into a swamp. But it takes real skill to create a cache that CAN be found, but only after extreme effort.

 

A great cache provides an "aha" moment. An impossible cache only creates frustration.

 

It doesn't take real skill to create a cache that can be found only after extreme effort. People toss nanos in the woods all the time. It may take extreme effort to find but it's not a great cache. It's just a needle in a haystack.

 

I will agree though, a great cache typically does have an AHA moment.

Edited by slumbersix
Link to post
There's really no difference between a cache that is so difficult no one can find it, and a cache that doesn't actually exist.

Absolutely there is a difference. One, there is a cache there waiting for someone smart/persistent/good enough to find it. The another there isn't.

 

I went back and bolded the part of my comment that you might have missed.

 

If a cache is so difficult that no one can find it, it is equivalent to a cache that does not exist. "No one can find it" would exclude anyone being smart/persistent/good enough to find it.

 

Schrödinger's cache, if you will. If a cache falls in the forest and no one finds it, is it really there? Like Zen, the concept is so simple that it is difficult for some to grasp.

 

Several times in this thread someone has mentioned the cache at the bottom of the ocean. Well, what's the point of that? I could flush a micro down my toilet and post the coordinates for my septic tank, but what's the point of that?

 

The point of this game, if it has one, is NOT to create caches so hard that no mere mortal can find them. Any fool can do that. Weight down an ammo box and toss it overboard, or toss a blinkie into a swamp. But it takes real skill to create a cache that CAN be found, but only after extreme effort.

 

A great cache provides an "aha" moment. An impossible cache only creates frustration.

 

Did Jiendo really exist, or was it a hoax? It doesn't matter. If it had been found, it would have provided the finder with a tremendous "aha" moment. But it was not found, and now it never will be found. So, functionally, it is identical to a cache that never was.

 

And you missed that it is still possible to find, just that those who tried weren't able to do so. If a cache is there, it has the possibility of being found. :)

Link to post

 

Schrödinger's cache, if you will. If a cache falls in the forest and no one finds it, is it really there? Like Zen, the concept is so simple that it is difficult for some to grasp.

 

You just gave me an awsome idea for a cache with that one i will definately start constructing it soo..

 

See a good train wreck can be a positive thing sometimes..

 

Chugga chugga CHOOOOOO CRAAAASSSHHHHH!!!!!

 

On Topic (if there is such a thing in this one)

If it was there, sad to see it go as i would camp for a month near it till i found it. if it wasn't oh well, and till we get more then one side we will never know..

Link to post
There's really no difference between a cache that is so difficult no one can find it, and a cache that doesn't actually exist.

Absolutely there is a difference. One, there is a cache there waiting for someone smart/persistent/good enough to find it. The another there isn't.

 

I went back and bolded the part of my comment that you might have missed.

 

If a cache is so difficult that no one can find it, it is equivalent to a cache that does not exist. "No one can find it" would exclude anyone being smart/persistent/good enough to find it.

 

Schrödinger's cache, if you will. If a cache falls in the forest and no one finds it, is it really there? Like Zen, the concept is so simple that it is difficult for some to grasp.

 

Several times in this thread someone has mentioned the cache at the bottom of the ocean. Well, what's the point of that? I could flush a micro down my toilet and post the coordinates for my septic tank, but what's the point of that?

 

The point of this game, if it has one, is NOT to create caches so hard that no mere mortal can find them. Any fool can do that. Weight down an ammo box and toss it overboard, or toss a blinkie into a swamp. But it takes real skill to create a cache that CAN be found, but only after extreme effort.

 

A great cache provides an "aha" moment. An impossible cache only creates frustration.

 

Did Jiendo really exist, or was it a hoax? It doesn't matter. If it had been found, it would have provided the finder with a tremendous "aha" moment. But it was not found, and now it never will be found. So, functionally, it is identical to a cache that never was.

 

And you missed that it is still possible to find, just that those who tried weren't able to do so. If a cache is there, it has the possibility of being found. :)

 

So what you're saying is that if I take a bison tube, disguise it like a rock, and toss it in a field of riprap and it is never found because of the difficulty of the hide ( a true needle in a haystack, if you will), then it is different than a cache that isn't there? Would you be able to find it? Would anyone?

 

That is no different than if I published a cache page stating I had hidden such a hide and had not. In both instances, no one has the chance of finding it: on one occasion because I hid a weapons-grade stupid hide, and in the other because I just wanted to be a royal pain to other cachers. I suspect that if SF had been up front with the reviewer and said that this was to be a fiendish find, described it (with pictures or drawings), and stated that there might be a bevy of DNF"S on this thing, we'd not be in the situation we are today.

 

Although, I know I'll just get some snarky comment back about how we shouldn't have to do that, and that there is nothing anywhere stating that we should/have/ought to, I'll save you that trouble. However, it's this sense that we should wait for GS or reviewers to ask us for something, when we should be proactive in helping them. If you design a devilish hide, be proactive about working with your reviewers. They're helping us,so why not make their job easier?

 

*edited for grammar and what not

Edited by Cpl. Klinger
Link to post

Just wait until you think one of your caches is missing. You take it offline in preparation for a replacement only to have someone claim they found it after you check to see that it's not in its resting spot. It's happened to me on at least two caches. It goes like this: folks put the cache back in a different spot. The next folks post DNFs. A previous finder might check on it and report it's not there. You go check on it and it's not there. You take it offline. A finder posts a find. You question the find as false. They describe exactly where they found it. You follow their directions and there it is. Now you, as the owner, thought your own cache didn't exist when, in fact, it did!

By this argument cache owners should never archive their own cache just because they think it is missing. But cache owners do this every day. Some do it simply based on the cache getting several DNFs - they don't even try to check to see if the cache is there. Are cache owners any different than a reviewer who sees evidence that a cache has gone missing or may have never even been there and archives it? The only difference is that when a reviewer archives a cache, the cache owner can present evidence that the cache is there and get it unarchived.

Link to post
So what you're saying is that if I take a bison tube, disguise it like a rock, and toss it in a field of riprap and it is never found because of the difficulty of the hide ( a true needle in a haystack, if you will), then it is different than a cache that isn't there? Would you be able to find it? Would anyone?

 

That is no different than if I published a cache page stating I had hidden such a hide and had not.

One cache exists, one does not.

One cache is in full compliance with the guidelines, one is not.

One cache would be an example of a challenge, one would be a lie.

 

It took me 15 hours of actual search time to locate a quite challenging urban micro in North Florida.

Many, many people, including me, DNFd it... more than once.

It never occurred to me to question if the cache was a hoax. ;)

I hope this attitude doesn't become the default for those who fail at finding a challenging hide.

"Hey, I looked right where my GPS thingy told me to. It must not be there! It aughta be archived!"

:):D:D:)

Link to post
So what you're saying is that if I take a bison tube, disguise it like a rock, and toss it in a field of riprap and it is never found because of the difficulty of the hide ( a true needle in a haystack, if you will), then it is different than a cache that isn't there? Would you be able to find it? Would anyone?

 

That is no different than if I published a cache page stating I had hidden such a hide and had not.

One cache exists, one does not.

One cache is in full compliance with the guidelines, one is not.

One cache would be an example of a challenge, one would be a lie.

 

It took me 15 hours of actual search time to locate a quite challenging urban micro in North Florida.

Many, many people, including me, DNFd it... more than once.

It never occurred to me to question if the cache was a hoax. ;)

I hope this attitude doesn't become the default for those who fail at finding a challenging hide.

"Hey, I looked right where my GPS thingy told me to. It must not be there! It aughta be archived!"

:):D:D:)

 

Over time, the wife and I have done some pretty devious hides. Some we've gone back repeatedly for. If SF's hide was all that it was cracked up to be, then it was a hard, but fair cache. But my example of a cammo'd bison tube in a riprap field is just dumb. I'll take the hard but fair cache any day.

 

I still think that if there was better coordination with the local reviewers up front when this cache was placed, this whole situation would be moot.

Link to post
I still think that if there was better coordination with the local reviewers up front when this cache was placed, this whole situation would be moot.

I agree. If SF had told the reviewers that the cache didn't exist when he tried to publish it, then we'd have missed ALL of this fun.

 

:);):D:)

Link to post
I still think that if there was better coordination with the local reviewers up front when this cache was placed, this whole situation would be moot.

I agree. If SF had told the reviewers that the cache didn't exist when he tried to publish it, then we'd have missed ALL of this fun.

 

:):D:D:D

Now just wait a minute here... are you insinuatin' that SF lied?? :):sad:;)

Link to post

I'm jumpping in way late here, but haven't been in the forum's for a while. Personally I'd like to thank Nomax for going threw and cleaning up a lot of unmaintained caches. I don't know how many he got here, but he posted a reviewer's note that if the cache owner was intending to fix to put a log on the page saying so, or it would be archived. Then about 3 week's later he came threw again and did a lot of archiving. If yours got archive by mistake, just e-mail your local reviewer and they can unarchived it. Not a big deal to do.

 

He got rid of a lot of stuff that had been missing for a very long time, and no response from the cache owner's. The only down side I've noticed from it, is now some are not disabling their hides, even though they know they are missing or the cache owner isn't around anymore to disable their hide.

 

Sorry but I'm not reading threw 23 pages so I have not read the whole thread, just making a reply to the topic.

Link to post
There's really no difference between a cache that is so difficult no one can find it, and a cache that doesn't actually exist.

Absolutely there is a difference. One, there is a cache there waiting for someone smart/persistent/good enough to find it. The another there isn't.

 

I went back and bolded the part of my comment that you might have missed.

 

If a cache is so difficult that no one can find it, it is equivalent to a cache that does not exist. "No one can find it" would exclude anyone being smart/persistent/good enough to find it.

 

Schrödinger's cache, if you will. If a cache falls in the forest and no one finds it, is it really there? Like Zen, the concept is so simple that it is difficult for some to grasp.

 

Several times in this thread someone has mentioned the cache at the bottom of the ocean. Well, what's the point of that? I could flush a micro down my toilet and post the coordinates for my septic tank, but what's the point of that?

 

The point of this game, if it has one, is NOT to create caches so hard that no mere mortal can find them. Any fool can do that. Weight down an ammo box and toss it overboard, or toss a blinkie into a swamp. But it takes real skill to create a cache that CAN be found, but only after extreme effort.

 

A great cache provides an "aha" moment. An impossible cache only creates frustration.

 

Did Jiendo really exist, or was it a hoax? It doesn't matter. If it had been found, it would have provided the finder with a tremendous "aha" moment. But it was not found, and now it never will be found. So, functionally, it is identical to a cache that never was.

 

And you missed that it is still possible to find, just that those who tried weren't able to do so. If a cache is there, it has the possibility of being found. ;)

 

So what you're saying is that if I take a bison tube, disguise it like a rock, and toss it in a field of riprap and it is never found because of the difficulty of the hide ( a true needle in a haystack, if you will), then it is different than a cache that isn't there? Would you be able to find it? Would anyone?

 

That is no different than if I published a cache page stating I had hidden such a hide and had not. In both instances, no one has the chance of finding it: on one occasion because I hid a weapons-grade stupid hide, and in the other because I just wanted to be a royal pain to other cachers. I suspect that if SF had been up front with the reviewer and said that this was to be a fiendish find, described it (with pictures or drawings), and stated that there might be a bevy of DNF"S on this thing, we'd not be in the situation we are today.

 

Although, I know I'll just get some snarky comment back about how we shouldn't have to do that, and that there is nothing anywhere stating that we should/have/ought to, I'll save you that trouble. However, it's this sense that we should wait for GS or reviewers to ask us for something, when we should be proactive in helping them. If you design a devilish hide, be proactive about working with your reviewers. They're helping us,so why not make their job easier?

 

*edited for grammar and what not

 

One never knows, but at least I would have a chance, I WOULD!!! :D You can't say there's no difference, in one instance you LIED about placing the container, so there's ZERO chance of finding it since it's not there. In the other instance, you did hide it and I have a chance, no matter how remote. That's pretty obvious to me! :) And you can't say NO ONE, there's ALWAYS a chance if it's actually there!

Link to post

I'm jumpping in way late here, but haven't been in the forum's for a while. Personally I'd like to thank Nomax for going threw and cleaning up a lot of unmaintained caches. I don't know how many he got here, but he posted a reviewer's note that if the cache owner was intending to fix to put a log on the page saying so, or it would be archived. Then about 3 week's later he came threw again and did a lot of archiving. If yours got archive by mistake, just e-mail your local reviewer and they can unarchived it. Not a big deal to do.

 

He got rid of a lot of stuff that had been missing for a very long time, and no response from the cache owner's. The only down side I've noticed from it, is now some are not disabling their hides, even though they know they are missing or the cache owner isn't around anymore to disable their hide.

 

Sorry but I'm not reading threw 23 pages so I have not read the whole thread, just making a reply to the topic.

 

Then maybe you shouldn't bother to post if you can't be bothered to read. Your post is so far from what happened......

Link to post

Just wait until you think one of your caches is missing. You take it offline in preparation for a replacement only to have someone claim they found it after you check to see that it's not in its resting spot. It's happened to me on at least two caches. It goes like this: folks put the cache back in a different spot. The next folks post DNFs. A previous finder might check on it and report it's not there. You go check on it and it's not there. You take it offline. A finder posts a find. You question the find as false. They describe exactly where they found it. You follow their directions and there it is. Now you, as the owner, thought your own cache didn't exist when, in fact, it did!

By this argument cache owners should never archive their own cache just because they think it is missing. But cache owners do this every day. Some do it simply based on the cache getting several DNFs - they don't even try to check to see if the cache is there. Are cache owners any different than a reviewer who sees evidence that a cache has gone missing or may have never even been there and archives it? The only difference is that when a reviewer archives a cache, the cache owner can present evidence that the cache is there and get it unarchived.

 

The difference is, the owner has a CHOICE whether they want to archive unlike in this situation.

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