Jump to content

Rogue Reviewer?


Recommended Posts

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

 

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different?

 

We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! :) Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all....

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

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

 

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different?

 

We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! :) Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all....

 

OK, I have to completely and thoroughly disagree with RR here.

As a cache hider, it is your responsibility to rate your cache placement reasonably accurately. Most cachers know and understand the difference between an easy cache and a very hard one.

As for US helping THEM, the reviewers are not paid to do their "job" they are VOLUNTEERS, this means that the time they spend on that part of the sport is time they are taking away from their families, hobbies, etc. Even if they were being paid, why in the he** would you want to make the job HARDER??? I see noting wrong with the idea of being proactive and giving the reviewer some "extra" information on a tough hide. Hey, if SF had sent Nomex a few photos of the container, do you really think we would have even had this thread? Even if he had archived the cache anyway, I'm 100% positive TPTB would have quickly overruled that decision.

 

BTW, what's the GC # of the cache at the bottom of the ocean?

Link to post

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different?

 

Actually, those hoops should be jumped through by everybody. I put a cache in a park a few months ago, that already had two placed there. In a reviewer note, I told the reviewer up front that I had measured the distance from the other two caches and made sure that none of the waypoints used or the final violated the 528' rule. Sure, I could have let the reviewer do that and slow down the publication of mine and others, andI am still sure they at least did a quick check, but it was easy. And my cache got approved in about 3 hours.

 

There seems to be a huge sense of entitlement around lately, that we should be getting a lot from the TPTB, and that they ask too much of us. These folks are mostly unpaid volunteers that do this on their free time, possibly cutting into their caching time. What's so wrong with helping a person out?

 

We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! :) Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all....

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I can say this though: without reivewers, there would be no caches to find. A cyclical argument.

Link to post

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

 

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different?

 

We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! :) Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all....

 

OK, I have to completely and thoroughly disagree with RR here.

As a cache hider, it is your responsibility to rate your cache placement reasonably accurately. Most cachers know and understand the difference between an easy cache and a very hard one.

As for US helping THEM, the reviewers are not paid to do their "job" they are VOLUNTEERS, this means that the time they spend on that part of the sport is time they are taking away from their families, hobbies, etc. Even if they were being paid, why in the he** would you want to make the job HARDER??? I see noting wrong with the idea of being proactive and giving the reviewer some "extra" information on a tough hide. Hey, if SF had sent Nomex a few photos of the container, do you really think we would have even had this thread? Even if he had archived the cache anyway, I'm 100% positive TPTB would have quickly overruled that decision.

 

BTW, what's the GC # of the cache at the bottom of the ocean?

 

Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment?

 

No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to. They wouldn't even HAVE that "job" if it weren't for people hiding caches. Since we are ALSO volunteers, why should WE be made to work harder than the other hiders? Do others have to photogragh their hides? I see nothing wrong with the reviewer ASKING for more info if they feel the need, we shouldn't suddenly be told we MUST jump hoops simply because some think we should be doing the reviewers' jobs.

 

If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread? We as hiders can't POSSIBLY know that our hides will be so hard that no one will be able to find them. I have hidden caches that I thought would surely fool the masses which were found very quickly, I have hidden caches (like my Where's The Elevator) which is so simple, it took us all of 5 minutes to place and has proven to be very difficult to find. Unlike the CO, I walked people to the find, I basically held their hands while they searched...but I shoulnd't have to be a mind reader and KNOW that the reviewers want photograghiv proof when they don't even HINT at it.

 

Don't pretend the reviewers are doing anything they don't already want to be doing, they wouldn't be volunteers if that were the case.

Link to post

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different?

 

Actually, those hoops should be jumped through by everybody. I put a cache in a park a few months ago, that already had two placed there. In a reviewer note, I told the reviewer up front that I had measured the distance from the other two caches and made sure that none of the waypoints used or the final violated the 528' rule. Sure, I could have let the reviewer do that and slow down the publication of mine and others, andI am still sure they at least did a quick check, but it was easy. And my cache got approved in about 3 hours.

 

There seems to be a huge sense of entitlement around lately, that we should be getting a lot from the TPTB, and that they ask too much of us. These folks are mostly unpaid volunteers that do this on their free time, possibly cutting into their caching time. What's so wrong with helping a person out?

 

We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! :) Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all....

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I can say this though: without reivewers, there would be no caches to find. A cyclical argument.

 

I bet you think the reviewer simply took your word on the cache being far enough away? Not likely, my friend! They checked, you can bet on that...AND, while they likely appreciated your addition, it likely didn't speed up the process. You're acting like we hiders don't do this on a regular basis? I know my reviewer by name, by sight and by character, I know him as a friend. He's the one who usually OKs my hides, I leave notes that are more like friends chatting than a list of what is and isn't. I believe the reviewer knows my style of hides (should, I've hiddne plenty), just as I believe he knows I know what's expected of me. A normal note would say something to the extent of what the container is, how i's hidden, whether there's anything of concern around the hide etc...this is NORMAL for me. Now, what would be abnormal and what I would consider "hoops" would be if he asked me to take pictures of the container, of the hiding location or of the areas around the hides. What I would consider "hoops" would be being asked to PROVE my cache was there...

 

Without hiders, there'd be no need for reviewers. Without hiders, there'd be no caching, period.

 

That sense of entitlement...where is it? If, by entitlement, you mean we shouldn't expect the reviewers to do what they are supposed to do, I guess you're right!

Link to post

btw, I've had caches activated in minutes...but I never took a picture or read a reviewer's mind in the hiding or posting process. Some of you seem to think the reviewers are doing us hiders a favor...how? If I wanted to, I could hide caches all I want in other sites...reviewers not needed! I appreciate my reviewers, I appreciate the mods, the PTB and all of GS, but I'm not diluted in believing they're doing me a favor by doing what their "bosses" have empowered them to do.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post
Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment?
I'd say that any hoax cache was rated improperly.
No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to.
It would surprise me to find that any of the reviewers asked for the job. It is my understanding that qualified individuals are approached about the positions, they don't seek them out.
If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread?
If teh cache 'owner' had submitted a pic with his appeal, we wouldn't be having this thread. Of course, you can't photograph what doesn't exist.
Link to post
Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment?
I'd say that any hoax cache was rated improperly.
No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to.
It would surprise me to find that any of the reviewers asked for the job. It is my understanding that qualified individuals are approached about the positions, they don't seek them out.
If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread?
If teh cache 'owner' had submitted a pic with his appeal, we wouldn't be having this thread. Of course, you can't photograph what doesn't exist.

 

When you can prove that cache was a hoax, your continued insistance it was will mean something.

 

My mistake, they agreed to or chose to do what was asked them. Not a big difference IMHO. I wonder if any of the reviewers were forced into service? Any of you had a gun held to your heads when "asked" to become a VOLUNTEER??

 

And you can go in circles all day about the picture, the fact is NOT ONE hider has ever been known to be ASKED to provide photograghic proof. If this is what the reviewer wanted, they should have ASKED!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post
Some of you seem to think the reviewers are doing us hiders a favor...how? If I wanted to, I could hide caches all I want in other sites...reviewers not needed!

You're making LOTS of friends in the reviewer ranks. :)

 

I guess you don't want to have any other caches published on this site? :D

Link to post
Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment?
I'd say that any hoax cache was rated improperly.
No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to.
It would surprise me to find that any of the reviewers asked for the job. It is my understanding that qualified individuals are approached about the positions, they don't seek them out.
If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread?
If teh cache 'owner' had submitted a pic with his appeal, we wouldn't be having this thread. Of course, you can't photograph what doesn't exist.

 

When you can prove that cache was a hoax, your continued insistance it was will mean something.

 

My mistake, they agreed to or chose to do what was asked them. Not a big difference IMHO. I wonder if any of the reviewers were forced into service? Any of you had a gun held to your heads when "asked" to become a VOLUNTEER??

 

And you can go in circles all day about the picture, the fact is NOT ONE hider has ever been known to be ASKED to provide photograghic proof. If this is what the reviewer wanted, they should have ASKED!

Do you think that you could wander farther from this thread's topic?

 

As for proving that the cache was a hoax, I don't have to. Nomex had the proof of this that he needed. His word and that of Miss Jenn is sufficient for me. The cache, therefore, was a hoax unless the cache owner is willing to prove otherwise.

Link to post
Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment?
I'd say that any hoax cache was rated improperly.
No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to.
It would surprise me to find that any of the reviewers asked for the job. It is my understanding that qualified individuals are approached about the positions, they don't seek them out.
If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread?
If teh cache 'owner' had submitted a pic with his appeal, we wouldn't be having this thread. Of course, you can't photograph what doesn't exist.

 

When you can prove that cache was a hoax, your continued insistance it was will mean something.

 

My mistake, they agreed to or chose to do what was asked them. Not a big difference IMHO. I wonder if any of the reviewers were forced into service? Any of you had a gun held to your heads when "asked" to become a VOLUNTEER??

 

And you can go in circles all day about the picture, the fact is NOT ONE hider has ever been known to be ASKED to provide photograghic proof. If this is what the reviewer wanted, they should have ASKED!

Do you think that you could wander farther from this thread's topic?

 

As for proving that the cache was a hoax, I don't have to. Nomex had the proof of this that he needed. His word and that of Miss Jenn is sufficient for me. The cache, therefore, was a hoax unless the cache owner is willing to prove otherwise.

 

Gee, I answered your question and you complain I'm off-topic? Sorry, please don't ask if it's off topic then!

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

Link to post
Some of you seem to think the reviewers are doing us hiders a favor...how? If I wanted to, I could hide caches all I want in other sites...reviewers not needed!

You're making LOTS of friends in the reviewer ranks. :)

 

I guess you don't want to have any other caches published on this site? :)

 

I'm sorry if my stating the facts upsets you or anyone else, it certainly wasn't my intent. I hope you realize this to be fact though? btw, you may notice I have stated I am FRIENDS with my local reviewer(s)? Having over 100 caches/events under my belt, I don't think my stating a fact will harm that...and I do intend to have many more caches published, many coming in a few months!

Link to post

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

 

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different?

 

We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! :) Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all....

 

OK, I have to completely and thoroughly disagree with RR here.

As a cache hider, it is your responsibility to rate your cache placement reasonably accurately. Most cachers know and understand the difference between an easy cache and a very hard one.

As for US helping THEM, the reviewers are not paid to do their "job" they are VOLUNTEERS, this means that the time they spend on that part of the sport is time they are taking away from their families, hobbies, etc. Even if they were being paid, why in the he** would you want to make the job HARDER??? I see noting wrong with the idea of being proactive and giving the reviewer some "extra" information on a tough hide. Hey, if SF had sent Nomex a few photos of the container, do you really think we would have even had this thread? Even if he had archived the cache anyway, I'm 100% positive TPTB would have quickly overruled that decision.

 

BTW, what's the GC # of the cache at the bottom of the ocean?

 

Rainbow Hydrothermal Vents

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go

Link to post

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

 

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT. It doesn't have to be indisputable. It just has to be enough that they felt that the cache wasn't there. To top it all off, the only one that could "prove" it was there "threw the cache away"...

 

I guess I could claim I want proof that the cache was there as I spent so much of my time looking for it. I want proof. Please show me the proof it was there! I need proof to show that I just couldn't find it! All I have is the word of the CO.

 

Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough?

Edited by slumbersix
Link to post

Still discussing proof? Unless Groundspeak actually asked the cache owner to provide them with information, they have no way of knowing for sure. The CO states that he can no longer provide proof. It's never going to be resolved on these forums and I have given up asking about groundspeaks policies and procedures (due process if you will). So that leaves a mystery.

 

Nomex is a dedicated, respected, and helpful reviewer. Miss Jenn appears to be a good employee. The CO's story is within reason. I am leaving it with the belief that communication broke down on both ends. It happens. It could be avoided in the future.

Link to post

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

 

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT.

 

Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough?

 

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! :)

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

 

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT.

 

Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough?

 

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! :)

 

I'm fairly confident that they would have believed a photo. What gives you the idea that a photo would not have been enough? Sadly, if the cache really existed and SF is telling the truth, it no longer exists.

 

They could if a member of the team gave out the information.

Edited by slumbersix
Link to post

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

 

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT.

 

Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough?

 

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! :)

 

I'm fairly confident that they would have believed a photo. What gives you the idea that a photo would not have been enough? Sadly, if the cache really existed and SF is telling the truth, it no longer exists.

 

They could if a member of the team gave out the information.

 

Well, I'd like to believe so as well, but the way they dismissed the word of the owner leaves doubt.

 

Are you saying Mrs SF might have dropped a dime? I suppose anything is possible, but it surely is doubtful!

Link to post

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

 

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT.

 

Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough?

 

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! :)

 

I'm fairly confident that they would have believed a photo. What gives you the idea that a photo would not have been enough? Sadly, if the cache really existed and SF is telling the truth, it no longer exists.

 

They could if a member of the team gave out the information.

 

Well, I'd like to believe so as well, but the way they dismissed the word of the owner leaves doubt.

 

Are you saying Mrs SF might have dropped a dime? I suppose anything is possible, but it surely is doubtful!

 

Maybe because after previous actions of the owner(don't know if you remember the Kryptonite cache ordeal) his word might not mean much.

 

I'm just throwing out possibilities. Maybe Mrs SF or kid SF could have let something slip.

Link to post

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

 

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT.

 

Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough?

 

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! :)

 

I'm fairly confident that they would have believed a photo. What gives you the idea that a photo would not have been enough? Sadly, if the cache really existed and SF is telling the truth, it no longer exists.

 

They could if a member of the team gave out the information.

 

Well, I'd like to believe so as well, but the way they dismissed the word of the owner leaves doubt.

 

Are you saying Mrs SF might have dropped a dime? I suppose anything is possible, but it surely is doubtful!

 

Maybe because after previous actions of the owner(don't know if you remember the Kryptonite cache ordeal) his word might not mean much.

 

I'm just throwing out possibilities. Maybe Mrs SF or kid SF could have let something slip.

 

Anything is possible, but then, we're still talking about hearsay! And I would hope that past experience isn't the leading factor...nor even a tiny factor. btw...the Krypto cache, didn't that actually have a container?

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE!

 

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now.

 

Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court.

 

If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time.

Link to post

 

Nomex nor Miss Jenn proved ANYTHING, or we'd not have a looong topic like this. They say they have proof, but is that proof hearsay? Is it indisputable? We'll never know! I don't doubt they believe they have proof, I just wonder how credible that proof is!

 

That's the thing. Nomex and Miss Jenn have nothing to prove. Therefore, they will probably not post in this thread or provide you with the proof you WANT.

 

Even if they said what their proof was, would you buy it? Or would you go on and on about how it's not valid enough?

 

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE! If they can or can't prove anything is nothing about nothing at this point, I merely commented on a comment. Truly, I don't believe they CAN prove it. They believe their info to be correct and, it very well may be. However, this isn't proof, is it? Tell me, how would they be able to prove anything UNLESS they actually asked a local reviewer to go with the cache owner and check? Would THEY have believed a photo? So, short from hearing they did indeed ask the CO to lead a reviewer out there, no. But again, we're far past this point, and I am NOT asking for proof...haven't for several pages! :)

 

I'm fairly confident that they would have believed a photo. What gives you the idea that a photo would not have been enough? Sadly, if the cache really existed and SF is telling the truth, it no longer exists.

 

They could if a member of the team gave out the information.

 

Well, I'd like to believe so as well, but the way they dismissed the word of the owner leaves doubt.

 

Are you saying Mrs SF might have dropped a dime? I suppose anything is possible, but it surely is doubtful!

 

Maybe because after previous actions of the owner(don't know if you remember the Kryptonite cache ordeal) his word might not mean much.

 

I'm just throwing out possibilities. Maybe Mrs SF or kid SF could have let something slip.

 

Anything is possible, but then, we're still talking about hearsay! And I would hope that past experience isn't the leading factor...nor even a tiny factor. btw...the Krypto cache, didn't that actually have a container?

 

It's hearsay if one of the cache members states that the cache is not there?

 

Why shouldn't past experience play into some sort of determination? If your past experience with someone tells you that they've screwed people over in the past, I'd be watching them more closely.

 

Krypto did have a container. However, one person solved it and sent TDE and email asking for confirmation. Before the cacher got the confirmation he correctly solved it, he headed out to find it. He found the cache, seen the cache had been logged previously(never online though), and signed the log. The cacher got home to find the cache had been archived but decided to log his find anyways. The log is then deleted telling him he didn't find Krpytonite, he found the new cache that had been placed. He could log the new one but not Krpyto.

Link to post

 

It's hearsay if one of the cache members states that the cache is not there?

 

Why shouldn't past experience play into some sort of determination? If your past experience with someone tells you that they've screwed people over in the past, I'd be watching them more closely.

 

Krypto did have a container. However, one person solved it and sent TDE and email asking for confirmation. Before the cacher got the confirmation he correctly solved it, he headed out to find it. He found the cache, seen the cache had been logged previously(never online though), and signed the log. The cacher got home to find the cache had been archived but decided to log his find anyways. The log is then deleted telling him he didn't find Krpytonite, he found the new cache that had been placed. He could log the new one but not Krpyto.

 

It's still hearsay.

 

If past experience couple with hearsay leads to archival, this is bad bad bad....sure, watch more closely, but don't jump to conclusions!

 

The fact remains that there was a container. I know some of the details of Krypto and it sounds to me like there's more to that story....a personal cache type thing? However, it's apples and oranges from this situation IMHO.

Link to post

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE!

 

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now.

 

Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court.

 

If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time.

 

I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares?

 

I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so?

 

If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it! :santa::):)

Link to post

 

It's hearsay if one of the cache members states that the cache is not there?

 

Why shouldn't past experience play into some sort of determination? If your past experience with someone tells you that they've screwed people over in the past, I'd be watching them more closely.

 

Krypto did have a container. However, one person solved it and sent TDE and email asking for confirmation. Before the cacher got the confirmation he correctly solved it, he headed out to find it. He found the cache, seen the cache had been logged previously(never online though), and signed the log. The cacher got home to find the cache had been archived but decided to log his find anyways. The log is then deleted telling him he didn't find Krpytonite, he found the new cache that had been placed. He could log the new one but not Krpyto.

 

It's still hearsay.

 

If past experience couple with hearsay leads to archival, this is bad bad bad....sure, watch more closely, but don't jump to conclusions!

 

The fact remains that there was a container. I know some of the details of Krypto and it sounds to me like there's more to that story....a personal cache type thing? However, it's apples and oranges from this situation IMHO.

 

It's not hearsay if it came from one of the cache owners. Hearsay is - Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony

 

Now if a member of SF sent an email out with information that the cache never existed, is it hearsay?

 

Rod, you're wrong. The fact remains that SF claims there was a container. There's no proof of it. Unless you have proof that there is one.

 

As for Krypto, you can check out the MiGo forums about it. There was a nice long topic about it. It's not really apples to oranges. Sure, the cache existed. Sure it was findable. However, when someone did find it he said "sorry, I archived it and placed a new cache before you found it"... Basically, he screwed cachers over with that one too.

Edited by slumbersix
Link to post

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE!

 

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now.

 

Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court.

 

If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time.

 

I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares?

 

I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so?

 

If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it! :huh::):)

 

I'm not trying to prove anything really, other than pointing out how circular and pointless this whole argument has become. You're doing a fine job proving my point for me. :santa:

Link to post

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

 

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different?

 

We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! :) Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all....

 

OK, I have to completely and thoroughly disagree with RR here.

As a cache hider, it is your responsibility to rate your cache placement reasonably accurately. Most cachers know and understand the difference between an easy cache and a very hard one.

As for US helping THEM, the reviewers are not paid to do their "job" they are VOLUNTEERS, this means that the time they spend on that part of the sport is time they are taking away from their families, hobbies, etc. Even if they were being paid, why in the he** would you want to make the job HARDER??? I see noting wrong with the idea of being proactive and giving the reviewer some "extra" information on a tough hide. Hey, if SF had sent Nomex a few photos of the container, do you really think we would have even had this thread? Even if he had archived the cache anyway, I'm 100% positive TPTB would have quickly overruled that decision.

 

BTW, what's the GC # of the cache at the bottom of the ocean?

 

Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment?

 

No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to. They wouldn't even HAVE that "job" if it weren't for people hiding caches. Since we are ALSO volunteers, why should WE be made to work harder than the other hiders? Do others have to photogragh their hides? I see nothing wrong with the reviewer ASKING for more info if they feel the need, we shouldn't suddenly be told we MUST jump hoops simply because some think we should be doing the reviewers' jobs.

 

If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread? We as hiders can't POSSIBLY know that our hides will be so hard that no one will be able to find them. I have hidden caches that I thought would surely fool the masses which were found very quickly, I have hidden caches (like my Where's The Elevator) which is so simple, it took us all of 5 minutes to place and has proven to be very difficult to find. Unlike the CO, I walked people to the find, I basically held their hands while they searched...but I shoulnd't have to be a mind reader and KNOW that the reviewers want photograghiv proof when they don't even HINT at it.

 

Don't pretend the reviewers are doing anything they don't already want to be doing, they wouldn't be volunteers if that were the case.

 

Rocky, I gotta disagree with you here.

 

There are a lot more hiders than there are reviewers. The more information a hider can provide up front, the easier it makes it on everyone on the back end.

 

I placed a cache in a park that happened to be close to a railroad. The reviewer sent me a note asking about the tracks. Instead of trying to explain the placement, I went right out and took pictures of the placement, the park, and the tracks so that the reviewer had a good idea of the placement without trying to figure out a description. In hindsight, having seen the tracks when I placed the cache, I should have taken those pictures and offered that information when I activated the cache listing.

 

As for the reviewers wanting to do the job, that's really irrelevant. I have volunteered my time for similar endeavors. I can tell you that even though I really enjoyed the job, my patience was really taxed from time to time by certain players.

 

A lot of players get the idea the reviewers sit all day long and approve or archive caches. That could not be further from the truth. Reviewers have a finite amount of time they can devote to the job and still work, see their family, cache, etc. Anything a hider can do to speed things up is probably greatly appreciated.

Link to post

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE!

 

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now.

 

Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court.

 

If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time.

 

I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares?

 

I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so?

 

If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it! :D:):P

 

I'm not trying to prove anything really, other than pointing out how circular and pointless this whole argument has become. You're doing a fine job proving my point for me. :D

 

Seems you're happy to go circles with me? :):santa::huh:

Link to post

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

 

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different?

 

We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! :) Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all....

 

OK, I have to completely and thoroughly disagree with RR here.

As a cache hider, it is your responsibility to rate your cache placement reasonably accurately. Most cachers know and understand the difference between an easy cache and a very hard one.

As for US helping THEM, the reviewers are not paid to do their "job" they are VOLUNTEERS, this means that the time they spend on that part of the sport is time they are taking away from their families, hobbies, etc. Even if they were being paid, why in the he** would you want to make the job HARDER??? I see noting wrong with the idea of being proactive and giving the reviewer some "extra" information on a tough hide. Hey, if SF had sent Nomex a few photos of the container, do you really think we would have even had this thread? Even if he had archived the cache anyway, I'm 100% positive TPTB would have quickly overruled that decision.

 

BTW, what's the GC # of the cache at the bottom of the ocean?

 

Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment?

 

No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to. They wouldn't even HAVE that "job" if it weren't for people hiding caches. Since we are ALSO volunteers, why should WE be made to work harder than the other hiders? Do others have to photogragh their hides? I see nothing wrong with the reviewer ASKING for more info if they feel the need, we shouldn't suddenly be told we MUST jump hoops simply because some think we should be doing the reviewers' jobs.

 

If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread? We as hiders can't POSSIBLY know that our hides will be so hard that no one will be able to find them. I have hidden caches that I thought would surely fool the masses which were found very quickly, I have hidden caches (like my Where's The Elevator) which is so simple, it took us all of 5 minutes to place and has proven to be very difficult to find. Unlike the CO, I walked people to the find, I basically held their hands while they searched...but I shoulnd't have to be a mind reader and KNOW that the reviewers want photograghiv proof when they don't even HINT at it.

 

Don't pretend the reviewers are doing anything they don't already want to be doing, they wouldn't be volunteers if that were the case.

 

Rocky, I gotta disagree with you here.

 

There are a lot more hiders than there are reviewers. The more information a hider can provide up front, the easier it makes it on everyone on the back end.

 

I placed a cache in a park that happened to be close to a railroad. The reviewer sent me a note asking about the tracks. Instead of trying to explain the placement, I went right out and took pictures of the placement, the park, and the tracks so that the reviewer had a good idea of the placement without trying to figure out a description. In hindsight, having seen the tracks when I placed the cache, I should have taken those pictures and offered that information when I activated the cache listing.

 

As for the reviewers wanting to do the job, that's really irrelevant. I have volunteered my time for similar endeavors. I can tell you that even though I really enjoyed the job, my patience was really taxed from time to time by certain players.

 

A lot of players get the idea the reviewers sit all day long and approve or archive caches. That could not be further from the truth. Reviewers have a finite amount of time they can devote to the job and still work, see their family, cache, etc. Anything a hider can do to speed things up is probably greatly appreciated.

 

Yep, you were ASKED to clarify and you did. Nothing out of the usual, I've done this many times. And?? Had you not been asked to clarify and you were just denied without anything other than "check if container is there", would you have known to provide info on the tracks?? The fact you provided pics merely tells me you knew the process would go faster so your cache would be approved. I highly doubt you did so for the sake of saving the reviewer time...ICBW

 

Where on earth did you see me or anyone else say we thought the reviewers had nothing but time on their hands?? I agree, anything a hider can do to help...no problem there. BUT, anything a reviewer can do to help the CO would CERTAINLY spped up the process, therefore helping the reviewer...right? If you need a photo...ASK!! That's all I'm trying to say here. I'm not a mind reader, I have never known a CO required to provide photo proof and it should either be written in the guidelines or ASKED for! Simple.

 

If the reviewers don't want to do their jobs, I bet they know full well how to be relieved. Seen it done not so long ago. Likewise, if GS feels the burden is too high on their reviewers, they know how to get more.

 

I don't recall saying we should keep any important facts from the reviewer, I post ALL important info in my first post to him. I would expect the same consideration if there's something needed, like a picture perhaps. It's a two-way street which is EXACTLY my point!

Link to post

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE!

 

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now.

 

Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court.

 

If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time.

 

I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares?

 

I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so?

 

If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it! :D:):D

 

I'm not trying to prove anything really, other than pointing out how circular and pointless this whole argument has become. You're doing a fine job proving my point for me. :D

 

Seems you're happy to go circles with me? :):santa::huh:

 

Never was much of a dancer, so that's all I can do. I'm so bad I have 3 left feet! :P

 

I guess, for me at least, I can see the willingness to discuss this issue. I really do. It's a great part of this sport that I really enjoy. However, I cannot get the willingness that some folks exhibit here of letting their knickers get all bunched up over this. Some here make is sound as if the end is nigh, when the truth is farther from that assumption. Handled badly? Check. A PR semi-blunder? Maybe. The end of caching as we know it? Nawww....

 

In the end, both sides can learn something from this debate. Question is, who will use it best?

Link to post

 

It's hearsay if one of the cache members states that the cache is not there?

 

Why shouldn't past experience play into some sort of determination? If your past experience with someone tells you that they've screwed people over in the past, I'd be watching them more closely.

 

Krypto did have a container. However, one person solved it and sent TDE and email asking for confirmation. Before the cacher got the confirmation he correctly solved it, he headed out to find it. He found the cache, seen the cache had been logged previously(never online though), and signed the log. The cacher got home to find the cache had been archived but decided to log his find anyways. The log is then deleted telling him he didn't find Krpytonite, he found the new cache that had been placed. He could log the new one but not Krpyto.

 

It's still hearsay.

 

If past experience couple with hearsay leads to archival, this is bad bad bad....sure, watch more closely, but don't jump to conclusions!

 

The fact remains that there was a container. I know some of the details of Krypto and it sounds to me like there's more to that story....a personal cache type thing? However, it's apples and oranges from this situation IMHO.

 

It's not hearsay if it came from one of the cache owners. Hearsay is - Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony

 

Now if a member of SF sent an email out with information that the cache never existed, is it hearsay?

 

Rod, you're wrong. The fact remains that SF claims there was a container. There's no proof of it. Unless you have proof that there is one.

 

As for Krypto, you can check out the MiGo forums about it. There was a nice long topic about it. It's not really apples to oranges. Sure, the cache existed. Sure it was findable. However, when someone did find it he said "sorry, I archived it and placed a new cache before you found it"... Basically, he screwed cachers over with that one too.

 

Sure it's hearsay UNLESS the team member has full knowledge. Do you know something we don't? Just because they're a team member, they know everything?? Come on! If the team member was with the CO when he didn't hide the cache (hahaha), then it isn't hearsay. If the member saw the CO remove the cache, then it's not hearsay. If the member hears the cache isn't there, THAT'S hearsay...even if hearing from the CO himself. Could be he was pulling their leg?

 

SS, you're wrong. The fact remains the GS staff claims there was no container...got proof?? :):)

Link to post

Didn't I read somewhere that the Nazis used to go in circles...?*

 

*Fingers crossed.

 

Darn, Godwined again!

 

And I had a really witty picture to go with this, and thought better of it. Of all the luck!

 

I believe the mods have stated this thread would continue, I believe you're merely posting off-topic for naught!

Link to post

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE!

 

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now.

 

Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court.

 

If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time.

 

I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares?

 

I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so?

 

If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it! :D:):D

 

I'm not trying to prove anything really, other than pointing out how circular and pointless this whole argument has become. You're doing a fine job proving my point for me. :D

 

Seems you're happy to go circles with me? :santa::huh::P

 

Never was much of a dancer, so that's all I can do. I'm so bad I have 3 left feet! :D

 

I guess, for me at least, I can see the willingness to discuss this issue. I really do. It's a great part of this sport that I really enjoy. However, I cannot get the willingness that some folks exhibit here of letting their knickers get all bunched up over this. Some here make is sound as if the end is nigh, when the truth is farther from that assumption. Handled badly? Check. A PR semi-blunder? Maybe. The end of caching as we know it? Nawww....

 

In the end, both sides can learn something from this debate. Question is, who will use it best?

 

I could say the same about hthe other side. Some have expressed concern that the fake hides would become the norm? Yep, the end of caching if they don't nix it and nix it fast...

 

3 left feet? Wow, I bet that's darned sexy under a dress?? :D:D:D:)

Link to post

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

 

So we're supposed to know that the hide is so devilish that no one could find it, we should warn the reviewers of the possibility of a lot of DNFs and we should jump through hoops not jumped through by other hiders all because we're creative? And so what? If people can't find it and complain, do you believe TPTB would have acted any different?

 

We're helping THEM. Without US hiding caches, how far would this activity go?? After talking with a cacher in Alaska, I can tell you what a lack of caches to find means...to them!! :) Without us hiding caches, there'd be no need for reviewers at all....

 

OK, I have to completely and thoroughly disagree with RR here.

As a cache hider, it is your responsibility to rate your cache placement reasonably accurately. Most cachers know and understand the difference between an easy cache and a very hard one.

As for US helping THEM, the reviewers are not paid to do their "job" they are VOLUNTEERS, this means that the time they spend on that part of the sport is time they are taking away from their families, hobbies, etc. Even if they were being paid, why in the he** would you want to make the job HARDER??? I see noting wrong with the idea of being proactive and giving the reviewer some "extra" information on a tough hide. Hey, if SF had sent Nomex a few photos of the container, do you really think we would have even had this thread? Even if he had archived the cache anyway, I'm 100% positive TPTB would have quickly overruled that decision.

 

BTW, what's the GC # of the cache at the bottom of the ocean?

 

Where in the whole thread did you see that the hide was rated improperly? Where in te thread or ANYWHERE did you see me say we shouldn't rate the caches properly? How did you come to adding this in the comment?

 

No, they're NOT paid to do their "job", they asked to. They wouldn't even HAVE that "job" if it weren't for people hiding caches. Since we are ALSO volunteers, why should WE be made to work harder than the other hiders? Do others have to photogragh their hides? I see nothing wrong with the reviewer ASKING for more info if they feel the need, we shouldn't suddenly be told we MUST jump hoops simply because some think we should be doing the reviewers' jobs.

 

If the reviewers had ASKED for a picture, do you think we would have this thread? We as hiders can't POSSIBLY know that our hides will be so hard that no one will be able to find them. I have hidden caches that I thought would surely fool the masses which were found very quickly, I have hidden caches (like my Where's The Elevator) which is so simple, it took us all of 5 minutes to place and has proven to be very difficult to find. Unlike the CO, I walked people to the find, I basically held their hands while they searched...but I shoulnd't have to be a mind reader and KNOW that the reviewers want photograghiv proof when they don't even HINT at it.

 

Don't pretend the reviewers are doing anything they don't already want to be doing, they wouldn't be volunteers if that were the case.

 

Rocky, I gotta disagree with you here.

 

There are a lot more hiders than there are reviewers. The more information a hider can provide up front, the easier it makes it on everyone on the back end.

 

I placed a cache in a park that happened to be close to a railroad. The reviewer sent me a note asking about the tracks. Instead of trying to explain the placement, I went right out and took pictures of the placement, the park, and the tracks so that the reviewer had a good idea of the placement without trying to figure out a description. In hindsight, having seen the tracks when I placed the cache, I should have taken those pictures and offered that information when I activated the cache listing.

 

As for the reviewers wanting to do the job, that's really irrelevant. I have volunteered my time for similar endeavors. I can tell you that even though I really enjoyed the job, my patience was really taxed from time to time by certain players.

 

A lot of players get the idea the reviewers sit all day long and approve or archive caches. That could not be further from the truth. Reviewers have a finite amount of time they can devote to the job and still work, see their family, cache, etc. Anything a hider can do to speed things up is probably greatly appreciated.

 

Yep, you were ASKED to clarify and you did. Nothing out of the usual, I've done this many times. And?? Had you not been asked to clarify and you were just denied without anything other than "check if container is there", would you have known to provide info on the tracks?? The fact you provided pics merely tells me you knew the process would go faster so your cache would be approved. I highly doubt you did so for the sake of saving the reviewer time...ICBW

 

Where on earth did you see me or anyone else say we thought the reviewers had nothing but time on their hands?? I agree, anything a hider can do to help...no problem there. BUT, anything a reviewer can do to help the CO would CERTAINLY spped up the process, therefore helping the reviewer...right? If you need a photo...ASK!! That's all I'm trying to say here. I'm not a mind reader, I have never known a CO required to provide photo proof and it should either be written in the guidelines or ASKED for! Simple.

 

If the reviewers don't want to do their jobs, I bet they know full well how to be relieved. Seen it done not so long ago. Likewise, if GS feels the burden is too high on their reviewers, they know how to get more.

 

I don't recall saying we should keep any important facts from the reviewer, I post ALL important info in my first post to him. I would expect the same consideration if there's something needed, like a picture perhaps. It's a two-way street which is EXACTLY my point!

 

I'm not really sure why you are getting so bent out of shape. It's just a discussion and some people are going to disagree with you from time to time.

 

I'm going to head on back to OT and let you calm down a bit. I hate to be the one that causes you to have a stroke.

Link to post

My friend, you're missing the point. I don't CARE!

 

For someone who doesn't care,you have expended a lot of energy trying to convince others of your view point. I think you're the only one posting for the defense, right now.

 

Can you not accept that there was a break down in communications, that we will never be privy to all the details and that all attempts to find out those details will be futile? Right now you're trying to prove your point based on assuming facts not in evidence. You say the SF's hide wasn't fake. GS does, and has the evidence to prove it, which they rightfully have the right to withhold as this is not a criminal court.

 

If you really, truly believe that the hide wasn't fake, provide proof. Otherwise, you are just rambling on to prove a point that the OP and the CO has decided is no longer worthy of their time.

 

I'm not trying to convince ANYONE of anything. I am telling how I feel. If that convinces you, fine, if not, who cares?

 

I believe I have said many times the problem was in the handling...I believe I accepted that from the start? GS has every right to withhold whatever....does that make them right? Should we believe them simply because they say so?

 

If you really truly believe the cache was fake, please provide proof. Otherwise you're just rambling on to prove a point. Whether the CO agrees it's a waste of time or not, I don't think that comes into bearing with the posts I make, does it? And you want to bet there's more than just me still concerned? Prove it! :D:):D

 

I'm not trying to prove anything really, other than pointing out how circular and pointless this whole argument has become. You're doing a fine job proving my point for me. :D

 

Seems you're happy to go circles with me? :):santa::huh:

 

Never was much of a dancer, so that's all I can do. I'm so bad I have 3 left feet! :P

 

I guess, for me at least, I can see the willingness to discuss this issue. I really do. It's a great part of this sport that I really enjoy. However, I cannot get the willingness that some folks exhibit here of letting their knickers get all bunched up over this. Some here make is sound as if the end is nigh, when the truth is farther from that assumption. Handled badly? Check. A PR semi-blunder? Maybe. The end of caching as we know it? Nawww....

 

In the end, both sides can learn something from this debate. Question is, who will use it best?

 

I could not agree with you more.

 

Now, I need to see why my mommy let me wander out of the bleachers.....

Link to post

 

I'm not really sure why you are getting so bent out of shape. It's just a discussion and some people are going to disagree with you from time to time.

 

I'm going to head on back to OT and let you calm down a bit. I hate to be the one that causes you to have a stroke.

 

My friend, I am FAR from upset, I'm not even excited! I may not use the emoticons as much as I should and I probably could learn to use italics and other tools, but this is far from upsetting to me. No worries, I have been known to show when I'm upset! :):) Take my word on this, I'm not even close t bent out of shape...just a lot out of shape...darned junk food!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to post

I thought this was interesting. SuperFly has, in the past, found a couple of my owned caches. This was before he was told not to have contact with me anylonger. I know it was mentioned in past threads, but he has had another team name. It i s "TEAM DESERT EAGLE". Well, it looks as if he has made the choice to leave the "SUPER FLY" name and now he is officially "TEAM DESERT EAGLE" only. How do I know, well, he has been re-logging ALL 2009 of his cache finds by Super Fly, into his TEAM DESERT EAGLE account. I just got a few of these "find" logs/email notifications:

 

I found this cache as Super Fly. Due to personal reasons I am no longer caching as Super Fly.

This log is to keep record of the finds that I have made.

If there are any questions please feel free to email me at the address on my profile page.

Team Desert Eagle caching iPhone style.

 

..personal reasons? And to do this 2009 times? WOW...that is a lot of time never to return again. :)

Edited by WHO-DEY
Link to post

I thought this was interesting. SuperFly has, in the past, found a couple of my owned caches. This was before he was told not to have contact with me anylonger. I know it was mentioned in past threads, but he has had another team name. It i s "TEAM DESERT EAGLE". Well, it looks as if he has made the choice to leave the "SUPER FLY" name and now he is officially "TEAM DESERT EAGLE" only. How do I know, well, he has been re-logging ALL 2009 of his cache finds by Super Fly, into his TEAM DESERT EAGLE account. I just got a few of these "find" logs/email notifications:

 

I found this cache as Super Fly. Due to personal reasons I am no longer caching as Super Fly.

This log is to keep record of the finds that I have made.

If there are any questions please feel free to email me at the address on my profile page.

Team Desert Eagle caching iPhone style.

 

..personal reasons? And to do this 2009 times? WOW...that is, um,... something. :)

 

If I were a CO up there, and I got this kind of a log coming through, wouldn't I be able to delete the log, citing it as a bogus log? I know he had already found it once, but isn't he know basically getting smiley's under a name that never actually found the cache, nor is on the log book? Something to ponder...

Link to post

I thought this was interesting. SuperFly has, in the past, found a couple of my owned caches. This was before he was told not to have contact with me anylonger. I know it was mentioned in past threads, but he has had another team name. It i s "TEAM DESERT EAGLE". Well, it looks as if he has made the choice to leave the "SUPER FLY" name and now he is officially "TEAM DESERT EAGLE" only. How do I know, well, he has been re-logging ALL 2009 of his cache finds by Super Fly, into his TEAM DESERT EAGLE account. I just got a few of these "find" logs/email notifications:

 

I found this cache as Super Fly. Due to personal reasons I am no longer caching as Super Fly.

This log is to keep record of the finds that I have made.

If there are any questions please feel free to email me at the address on my profile page.

Team Desert Eagle caching iPhone style.

 

..personal reasons? And to do this 2009 times? WOW...that is, um,... something. :)

 

If I were a CO up there, and I got this kind of a log coming through, wouldn't I be able to delete the log, citing it as a bogus log? I know he had already found it once, but isn't he know basically getting smiley's under a name that never actually found the cache, nor is on the log book? Something to ponder...

 

Not quite, the PTB have allowed name changes and we all know this is the same cacher.

Link to post

If I were a CO up there, and I got this kind of a log coming through, wouldn't I be able to delete the log, citing it as a bogus log? I know he had already found it once, but isn't he know basically getting smiley's under a name that never actually found the cache, nor is on the log book? Something to ponder...

 

I hope not. I did exactly the same thing... well, almost exactly.

 

I had an account back in 2001-02. Re-joined this year, then remembered the password for the old account. The old account had less than a dozen finds, so I went back and re-logged them under my new username.

 

I can't imagine doing it for 2000+ finds, though. It was tedious enough for the few that I did.

Link to post

I have to stop reading these threads out of professional curiousity. As a private company, Groundspeak can certainly base a decision on hearsay (if that is what they did), and an admission by SF/TDE would be an exception to the hearsay rule if used in a court of law. Nobody should hold Groundspeak to a legal standard of proof. I doubt that anyone could ever establish that a cache was not there -- nor should they have to.

 

But even if Groundspeak had reason to believe that a cache was not there, and even if I assume that they were correct in their decision, I still think it would be a prudent course of action (as a matter of policy and procedure) to contact the cache owner, state that their specific concerns, and give a person full opportunity to respond before sending an email stating that after investigating the action, they have determined that you were lying.

 

The problem with hearsay from a legal standpoint is that it can be unreliable. And when there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, the weight of statements (and what those statements meant) may still be at issue. All that Groundspeak had to do here was to give the cache owner an opporuntiy to address their specific concerns before making a decision, as part of the investigation that Miss Jenn conducted. That still seems reasonable and fair to me and it would have solved the problem from the beginning.

 

The CO states that this was not done. If he is accurate (and I have not seen anything that indicates otherwise), communication broke down. Even if he might have responded to the original archive notice differently, communication broke down. There are simple ways to avoid that in the future by both parties.

 

Okay, this time I mean it about avoiding this topic for the foreseeable future. I imagine that it will still be going well into the new year so there may be plenty of opportunity then.

Edited by Erickson
Link to post

I can't imagine doing it for 2000+ finds, though. It was tedious enough for the few that I did.

 

One more because its off topic. Groundspeak will change user names under some circumstances. Team Alamo went to Alamogul, after manking tens of thousands of finds. I have thought about doing the same for personal reasons, but after 6000 finds, over a hundred hides, and how many forum posts, it does not seem worth it.

Link to post

I thought this was interesting. SuperFly has, in the past, found a couple of my owned caches. This was before he was told not to have contact with me anylonger. I know it was mentioned in past threads, but he has had another team name. It i s "TEAM DESERT EAGLE". Well, it looks as if he has made the choice to leave the "SUPER FLY" name and now he is officially "TEAM DESERT EAGLE" only. How do I know, well, he has been re-logging ALL 2009 of his cache finds by Super Fly, into his TEAM DESERT EAGLE account. I just got a few of these "find" logs/email notifications:

 

I found this cache as Super Fly. Due to personal reasons I am no longer caching as Super Fly.

This log is to keep record of the finds that I have made.

If there are any questions please feel free to email me at the address on my profile page.

Team Desert Eagle caching iPhone style.

 

..personal reasons? And to do this 2009 times? WOW...that is, um,... something. :)

 

If I were a CO up there, and I got this kind of a log coming through, wouldn't I be able to delete the log, citing it as a bogus log? I know he had already found it once, but isn't he know basically getting smiley's under a name that never actually found the cache, nor is on the log book? Something to ponder...

 

I thought about it, a few times. I think it should be removed/deleted, but based on the negative history of his actions etc, and GC.com saying no direct contact, I was concerned I would be crossing that line..so I refrained.

Edited by WHO-DEY
Link to post

 

It's hearsay if one of the cache members states that the cache is not there?

 

Why shouldn't past experience play into some sort of determination? If your past experience with someone tells you that they've screwed people over in the past, I'd be watching them more closely.

 

Krypto did have a container. However, one person solved it and sent TDE and email asking for confirmation. Before the cacher got the confirmation he correctly solved it, he headed out to find it. He found the cache, seen the cache had been logged previously(never online though), and signed the log. The cacher got home to find the cache had been archived but decided to log his find anyways. The log is then deleted telling him he didn't find Krpytonite, he found the new cache that had been placed. He could log the new one but not Krpyto.

 

It's still hearsay.

 

If past experience couple with hearsay leads to archival, this is bad bad bad....sure, watch more closely, but don't jump to conclusions!

 

The fact remains that there was a container. I know some of the details of Krypto and it sounds to me like there's more to that story....a personal cache type thing? However, it's apples and oranges from this situation IMHO.

 

It's not hearsay if it came from one of the cache owners. Hearsay is - Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony

 

Now if a member of SF sent an email out with information that the cache never existed, is it hearsay?

 

Rod, you're wrong. The fact remains that SF claims there was a container. There's no proof of it. Unless you have proof that there is one.

 

As for Krypto, you can check out the MiGo forums about it. There was a nice long topic about it. It's not really apples to oranges. Sure, the cache existed. Sure it was findable. However, when someone did find it he said "sorry, I archived it and placed a new cache before you found it"... Basically, he screwed cachers over with that one too.

 

Sure it's hearsay UNLESS the team member has full knowledge. Do you know something we don't? Just because they're a team member, they know everything?? Come on! If the team member was with the CO when he didn't hide the cache (hahaha), then it isn't hearsay. If the member saw the CO remove the cache, then it's not hearsay. If the member hears the cache isn't there, THAT'S hearsay...even if hearing from the CO himself. Could be he was pulling their leg?

 

SS, you're wrong. The fact remains the GS staff claims there was no container...got proof?? :):)

 

And who's to say she doesn't have full knowledge. She is part of the team. That's why they combined. I would suspect that she would have knowledge. If they came up with a scheme to do something like that, then they would both know.

 

Rod, we're just running around in circles here. We both know that. You feel it was wrongly archived. I don't.

 

You're right and wrong on the last point. GS claims there was no cache but SF claims there was a cache. GS feels they have enough evidence to backup their claim. Evidence they feel needs not be released. SF now has no proof his cache existed(as he claims he threw it away), if it existed in the first place(check my logs, I've questioned it once before in the cache page).

Link to post

 

Rod, we're just running around in circles here. We both know that. You feel it was wrongly archived. I don't.

 

You're right and wrong on the last point. GS claims there was no cache but SF claims there was a cache. GS feels they have enough evidence to backup their claim. Evidence they feel needs not be released. SF now has no proof his cache existed(as he claims he threw it away), if it existed in the first place(check my logs, I've questioned it once before in the cache page).

 

I don't necessarily think it was wrongly archived, more that it was archived wrongly! :)

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