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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

I noticed this isn't the first cache that was never found created by the cache owner. He quickly removed it after about 20 DNFs and blamed all the finders for destroying the area. Even though the last searcher swore everything looked find when they left. Personally, I think I would ignore most of the CO caches, seems they get archived really quickly and for no real reason.

Share this post


Link to post

With the description given, couldn't the local reviewer verify its existence and then have it reinstated and apology given? Personally I would love to tackle a hard cache like this, probably would not find it, but love the hunt.

Share this post


Link to post

So, how did the all knowing frog determine that there was no cache at this location? What evidence was used to support the decision? Without evidence to the contrary it sounds to me like Super Fly got the shaft on this one.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a cache in Ohio with only 1 find, and 110 DNFs so far. Due to the circumstances portrayed by this thread, I'm hesitant to name it, but those in the area sure know which one I'm talking about!

Share this post


Link to post

Let me thank Super Fly for coming on the thread to give us Forum reads some inside info, I know from me at least it answers a lot of questions and gives me some closure. Then this also raises a lot of new questions, how can Groundspeak just archive a cache just because it hasn't been found, isn't this what all cachers are after, the ultimate cache, the ultimate hunt. I can't believe that they are following the logic that so much time plus no finds must equal no cache, that the owner must be pulling everyone's leg and published a fake cache. This is appalling to me. Personally I don't blame you for not wanting to go to the trouble of getting it republished, because it should have never been archived.

 

I do have to speak up that not all reviews are like this, I think that we have some great reviews working down here in Indiana for us, and I am sure that their are other reviews that are wonderful in other areas as well, they are just like us cachers, but they take the time to volunteer so that we can cache, but I think in this case a little more patients and communication on the part of the reviewer was needed, one of the local reviews should have been involved and actually check on the cache, I thought that was the reason that our reviews are local, so that if this situation arises that it can be cleared up with a simple physical check.

 

I hope that this cache archiving does not set a precedent, for it so a lot of good caches are in danger, including one of mine that has never been found but is just waiting to be found. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I am not sure how Groundspeak could investigate to determine if a cache was there without conacting the CO about its placement. Last time that I checked there were a few caches that have never been found not too far from where I live, so that alone could not be the basis for their determination.

 

For that matter, how can anybody prove that a cache like GCG822 is actually there?

 

That other caches by the CO were reportedly archived without being found means little. That has happened here to caches by the owner of the local unfound ones and there is no possibility that they were bogus hides. On that I would stake my life and that of my first born.

 

In this case I can think of only two possible methods of investigation: use a remote viewer to "see" if it's there or to have a reviewer meet the cache owner or look at a video demonstrating the hide. I guess a third way would be if local cachers used persuasive techniques or bribes to get the CO to divulge the secrets of the cache but it did not seem to have reached that point.

 

I probably would have put this cache on my ignore list but I have seen some very well done caches using similar techniques to that described. If it was there, it must have been very well done and complicated by the nature of the location.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post

I am very dissapointed with Groundspeak's actions and would hope they publicly apologize to Superfly.

Calling him a liar on the cache page and then again in the forums.

 

Sounds like a great set up for a cache.

 

If Groundspeak knowingly published the cache without a container being present, then I would hope Groundspeak apologizes to the community as a whole for being part of it.

 

Either way Groundspeak has botched the handling of this.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the question I would like answered is how did nomex or jenn at HQ determine the cache never existed? It seems like they never visited the actual site, and from what SuperFly has said, no one with reviewer powers asked to actually see the physical cache. So how can they say the cache does not exist? There were only DNF's and no NM logs. It seems that the basis of stating there is no cache was that there were a string of DNF's and that is the only basis. It appears that Groundspeak is siding with nomex simply to protect his decision that was not based on any facts. This is certainly an ominous sign. I guess the only way of protecting your cache from being archived is to marshal an army of sock puppets to log finds every couple DNF's. Wonder if Vinny would rent out his army of zombie sock puppets?

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed this isn't the first cache that was never found created by the cache owner. He quickly removed it after about 20 DNFs and blamed all the finders for destroying the area. Even though the last searcher swore everything looked find when they left. Personally, I think I would ignore most of the CO caches, seems they get archived really quickly and for no real reason.

 

First, you pass judgement well for someone with no knowledge of the CO and for being so far away. Probably worth your while to do just what you say and ignore his hides...and maybe you're better off ignoring any hide not found recently?

 

Second, I once archived a cache for the very same reason, the area was torn to shreds by finders...and yes, most did find the cache. Maybe you should also ignore my hides since I archive many of them yearly? I give reason, but truly it's none of your business why...just saying. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone is so quick to side with the CO on this one. All that is being told is his side of the story, there must be a reason for Groundspeak to do what they did. If this guys story had any weight behind it he could have easily appealed to the reviewers higher authorities. Since I haven't heard anything about appealing it I'm concluding this guy is leaving some key information out. Don't take EVERYTHING at face value. And why won't he re-list it? Seem childish not to try to republish because "they picked on me!!" If they really going after just him then it will happen again, then we will all know something is up. If they are not going after him the cache is back in play.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone is so quick to side with the CO on this one. All that is being told is his side of the story, there must be a reason for Groundspeak to do what they did. If this guys story had any weight behind it he could have easily appealed to the reviewers higher authorities. Since I haven't heard anything about appealing it I'm concluding this guy is leaving some key information out. Don't take EVERYTHING at face value. And why won't he re-list it? Seem childish not to try to republish because "they picked on me!!" If they really going after just him then it will happen again, then we will all know something is up. If they are not going after him the cache is back in play.

 

I see two appeals, or don't the emails back and forth count? I see the first one being the message sent to Jenn...

 

Why are you so fast to side with GS? Do you see proof other than what we do? Seems you're pretty fast to side with someone simpy because they say so?

Share this post


Link to post

Here was my final responce:

 

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

And you didn't simply send Groundspeak a pictures of the container in place, and open, because.....?

 

That would have put the whole issue to bed immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
If this guys story had any weight behind it he could have easily appealed to the reviewers higher authorities.

Maybe not. Wouldn't Jenn, (the person who did the "investigation"), be the higher authority? I would love to hear the other side, but all I'm hearing from Groundspeak so far is crickets chirping. Assuming everything is on the up and up over at The Lily Pad, TPTB could still soundly refute Super Fly's claims, presenting whatever evidence they had. Personally, I hope they do just that. This incident, (as described by only one side), has really shaken my faith in this game. Groundspeak could easily restore my faith with a few well typed words.

 

And why won't he re-list it?

I can't speak for Super Fly, but if I spent 1.5 years building the perfect container, in an attempt to create a devilishly clever hide, then had it archived because someone half a country away thought I was a liar, and I revealed the secret of the hide in a public forum to satisfy all the detractors who placed themselves within the circling wagons, I would not rehide it. His whole point was to make a fiendishly difficult hide, not a kinda hard hide. The genie is out of the bottle.

Share this post


Link to post
And you didn't simply send Groundspeak a pictures of the container in place, and open, because.....?

 

That would have put the whole issue to bed immediately.

Have you ever heard of Groundspeak asking for that level of proof? I haven't.

Nomex asked for the cache to be checked.

Super Fly checked it. That should've put the issue to bed.

Had they asked for photo proof, he might very well have provided it.

They apparently did not.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone is so quick to side with the CO on this one. All that is being told is his side of the story, there must be a reason for Groundspeak to do what they did. If this guys story had any weight behind it he could have easily appealed to the reviewers higher authorities. Since I haven't heard anything about appealing it I'm concluding this guy is leaving some key information out. Don't take EVERYTHING at face value. And why won't he re-list it? Seem childish not to try to republish because "they picked on me!!" If they really going after just him then it will happen again, then we will all know something is up. If they are not going after him the cache is back in play.

 

 

Once again here is the email---Just in case you missed it the first time.

 

Flag this messageGC171MHSaturday, November 7, 2009 5:24 AMFrom: "Super Man" <supermansiphone@yahoo.com>View contact detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.comBcc: supermansiphone@yahoo.comTo whom at may concern,

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

Thank you for your time - Scott

 

Not the detailsTo: appeals@geocaching.

 

Yes I took it to a level above reviewers.

 

P.S. what is the GC# on that other cache without finds??

Share this post


Link to post
If this guys story had any weight behind it he could have easily appealed to the reviewers higher authorities.

Maybe not. Wouldn't Jenn, (the person who did the "investigation"), be the higher authority? I would love to hear the other side, but all I'm hearing from Groundspeak so far is crickets chirping. Assuming everything is on the up and up over at The Lily Pad, TPTB could still soundly refute Super Fly's claims, presenting whatever evidence they had. Personally, I hope they do just that. This incident, (as described by only one side), has really shaken my faith in this game. Groundspeak could easily restore my faith with a few well typed words.

 

And why won't he re-list it?

I can't speak for Super Fly, but if I spent 1.5 years building the perfect container, in an attempt to create a devilishly clever hide, then had it archived because someone half a country away thought I was a liar, and I revealed the secret of the hide in a public forum to satisfy all the detractors who placed themselves within the circling wagons, I would not rehide it. His whole point was to make a fiendishly difficult hide, not a kinda hard hide. The genie is out of the bottle.

 

Strongly agree on all points. Suddenly, this game seems to have been given a black eye and seemingly by it's own people?

Share this post


Link to post

And you didn't simply send Groundspeak a pictures of the container in place, and open, because.....?

That would have put the whole issue to bed immediately.

 

I suppose that a picture could be photoshopped. But, giving the CO the benefit of the doubt, I would have expected Groundspeak to contact me as part of their investigation. Unless there are emails that are being left out by the CO, they told him that they were going to do an investigation but it was not that clear as to what was being investigated or what was the basis of the original decision - was it the length of time it had gone without a find, the cache location, or a question as to whether the CO was being truthful? Assuming again that the CO is providing the full history of correspondence, Groundspeak never said.

 

According to the CO, Groundspeak contacted him again only after they told him that they concluded the cache was not there. In reply, he provided details of the hide. I suppose he could also have provided a photo but I do not know if I would have been inclined to do so at that point. Or whether the incident was closed, making no difference at that poinht.

 

I have always appreciated nomex -- he has been reasonable and honorable. I know that he has worked with a local cacher to ensure that Groundspeak did not archive a cache that was in doubt for other reasons. Other than their decisions on virtual caches, I have had no problem with Groundspeak. So the entire incident seems strange to me, and one where better communication by all parties might have avoided the present forum topic.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

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

 

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

 

I don't know which way to swing here. I figured probably the cache owner was no stranger to controversy, so I breezed through some other hides. I see a series of 26 park-n-grab 1/1 micros that had their listings locked, with all the CO's archive notes edited by the local reveiwer. That right there tells me local drama and angst exists in the Grand Rapids caching community. :laughing: And Groundspeak certainly seems to be implying he has hidden non-existant caches in the past, and engaged in sock puppetry. I know this sounds like a slam dunk case in favor of the cache owner, but I believe we still don't know the whole story of what is going on.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel

Share this post


Link to post

 

I don't know which way to swing here. I figured probably the cache owner was no stranger to controversy, so I breezed through some other hides. I see a series of 26 park-n-grab 1/1 micros that had their listings locked, with all the CO's archive notes edited by the local reveiwer. That right there tells me local drama and angst exists in the Grand Rapids caching community. :laughing: And Groundspeak certainly seems to be implying he has hidden non-existant caches in the past, and engaged in sock puppetry. I know this sounds like a slam dunk case in favor of the cache owner, but I believe we still don't know the whole story of what is going on.

 

What are you basing your accusation on? Yes, he had a lot of caches archived at the same time, but it also seemed that a lot of them kept disappearing. Did you contact SuperFly and ask him why he archieved them? I took a look and don't see where your getting your ideas from, are you in the area and know the cacher, what do you know that the rest of us don't, or are you a sock puppet against SuperFly?

Share this post


Link to post

 

I don't know which way to swing here. I figured probably the cache owner was no stranger to controversy, so I breezed through some other hides. I see a series of 26 park-n-grab 1/1 micros that had their listings locked, with all the CO's archive notes edited by the local reveiwer. That right there tells me local drama and angst exists in the Grand Rapids caching community. :laughing: And Groundspeak certainly seems to be implying he has hidden non-existant caches in the past, and engaged in sock puppetry. I know this sounds like a slam dunk case in favor of the cache owner, but I believe we still don't know the whole story of what is going on.

 

What are you basing your accusation on? Yes, he had a lot of caches archived at the same time, but it also seemed that a lot of them kept disappearing. Did you contact SuperFly and ask him why he archieved them? I took a look and don't see where your getting your ideas from, are you in the area and know the cacher, what do you know that the rest of us don't, or are you a sock puppet against SuperFly?

 

I wouldn't consider my entire quoted post an "accuasation". But I do know one thing, I gathered information after carefully reading and analyzing information. Something it's clear you obviously didn't do with my post before flying off the handle.

 

The allegations of sock puppetry and other non-existent caches being placed comes from Superfly's post where he has copied an email from a Groundspeak Lackey, whom I assume to be Miss Jenn: here. It is true that this is speculation on my part, but speculation I can reference the source for.

 

The 26 caches were archived by the cache owner. All 26 archival notes were edited by the local reviewer, -Tiki-. All the cache pages were then locked from further logs by the reveiwer. I don't know very many people who have had reviewers edit their cache logs, do you? Hence the "accusation" that there is angst and drama in the local caching community, and that the CO has had incidents with the local reveiwer that are not the norm in the world of Geocaching.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like the cache owner could put an end to the controversy by simply sharing an image of his cache container.

Share this post


Link to post
The allegations of sock puppetry and other non-existent caches being placed comes from Superfly's post where he has copied an email from a Groundspeak Lackey, whom I assume to be Miss Jenn: here. It is true that this is speculation on my part, but speculation I can reference the source for.

The CO used to cache under a different name. This is referred to in the logs on the cache page. I figured the name change was what was being referred to in the GS emails.

 

Incidentally, forum regulars have likely come across his other account: he owned Big Boy. I think that gives him some additional credibility.

Edited by Dinoprophet

Share this post


Link to post

 

I don't know which way to swing here. I figured probably the cache owner was no stranger to controversy, so I breezed through some other hides. I see a series of 26 park-n-grab 1/1 micros that had their listings locked, with all the CO's archive notes edited by the local reveiwer. That right there tells me local drama and angst exists in the Grand Rapids caching community. :laughing: And Groundspeak certainly seems to be implying he has hidden non-existant caches in the past, and engaged in sock puppetry. I know this sounds like a slam dunk case in favor of the cache owner, but I believe we still don't know the whole story of what is going on.

 

What are you basing your accusation on? Yes, he had a lot of caches archived at the same time, but it also seemed that a lot of them kept disappearing. Did you contact SuperFly and ask him why he archieved them? I took a look and don't see where your getting your ideas from, are you in the area and know the cacher, what do you know that the rest of us don't, or are you a sock puppet against SuperFly?

 

But I do know one thing, I gathered information after carefully reading and analyzing information. Something it's clear you obviously didn't do with my post before flying off the handle.

 

 

There you go making more unfounded accusations.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like the cache owner could put an end to the controversy by simply sharing an image of his cache container.

Cache Owner- Please do not post an image of the cache container here.

 

If you spent so much time on it and it is real, re-hide it and publish it. Don't spoil it for your locals by showing it. I still think you should remove the description of it from that earlier post. If the cache is that good it will speak for itself once it’s published.

 

Hide it again and write up a new cache listing that will kill any rumors, you don't need to show any of us the cache. Don't let your hurt feelings about how your being "targeted" keep you from showing that you are in the right, if you are.

 

Most if not all your cache finders rave about your hides. To not keep hiding caches seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

(Line breaks added so that others may pick apart my opinion)

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like the cache owner could put an end to the controversy by simply sharing an image of his cache container.

Cache Owner- Please do not post an image of the cache container here.

 

If you spent so much time on it and it is real, re-hide it and publish it. Don't spoil it for your locals by showing it. I still think you should remove the description of it from that earlier post. If the cache is that good it will speak for itself once it’s published.

 

Hide it again and write up a new cache listing that will kill any rumors, you don't need to show any of us the cache. Don't let your hurt feelings about how your being "targeted" keep you from showing that you are in the right, if you are.

 

Most if not all your cache finders rave about your hides. To not keep hiding caches seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

(Line breaks added so that others may pick apart my opinion)

He's made it pretty darn clear that he won't be listing a new cache. A pic of the container would go a long way in fixing his damaged reputation. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

If he tries to republish it, in the exact format as before. wouldn't it get refused?

 

Republishing would be the same as un-archiving the original and it would appear that is not going to happen.

 

And enough people know what to look for that the integrity of the challenge has been compromised.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like the cache owner could put an end to the controversy by simply sharing an image of his cache container.

Cache Owner- Please do not post an image of the cache container here.

 

If you spent so much time on it and it is real, re-hide it and publish it. Don't spoil it for your locals by showing it. I still think you should remove the description of it from that earlier post. If the cache is that good it will speak for itself once it’s published.

 

Hide it again and write up a new cache listing that will kill any rumors, you don't need to show any of us the cache. Don't let your hurt feelings about how your being "targeted" keep you from showing that you are in the right, if you are.

 

Most if not all your cache finders rave about your hides. To not keep hiding caches seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

(Line breaks added so that others may pick apart my opinion)

He's made it pretty darn clear that he won't be listing a new cache. A pic of the container would go a long way in fixing his damaged reputation.

I'd be more interested in what evidence gs used to conclude that a cache was not hidden at the location. Seems if they are making accusations they should have a way to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like the cache owner could put an end to the controversy by simply sharing an image of his cache container.

Cache Owner- Please do not post an image of the cache container here.

 

If you spent so much time on it and it is real, re-hide it and publish it. Don't spoil it for your locals by showing it. I still think you should remove the description of it from that earlier post. If the cache is that good it will speak for itself once it’s published.

 

Hide it again and write up a new cache listing that will kill any rumors, you don't need to show any of us the cache. Don't let your hurt feelings about how your being "targeted" keep you from showing that you are in the right, if you are.

 

Most if not all your cache finders rave about your hides. To not keep hiding caches seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

(Line breaks added so that others may pick apart my opinion)

He's made it pretty darn clear that he won't be listing a new cache. A pic of the container would go a long way in fixing his damaged reputation.

I'd be more interested in what evidence gs used to conclude that a cache was not hidden at the location. Seems if they are making accusations they should have a way to back it up.

Seems like it would be easier to prove teh cache existed than to prove it doesn't. That being said, TPTB don't have to prove anything. All they would need is strong suspicion that the cache didn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post

not gonna side one way or the other (though the fact that TPTB are refusing to say ANYTHING about this to the public is fishy).

 

/sarcasm im just soooo glad that this cache has been ruined with descriptions posted etc. /endsarcasm

 

to bad cause this sounded fun.. i do have to agree that why just not show it to a local reviewer, yeah would ruin the fun for the reviewer in finding it later but would clear things up and the reviewer could simply message GS and say "hey just looked at the cache physically and can verify its existance and placement" would fix it.. not knowing anything but what has been posted here and Nothing from anyone involved but the CO leave a really bad taste in the mouth.. Transperancy is what we need now not shadow stealth games that just stirs up a hornets nests..

 

TPTB Post something, anything, to clear your position on this up or else this may hurt the community. seriously how many are mad, or are worried about there awsome hides, or just dont want it to happen to them so they just archive and remove all the difficult caches they own over this.. seriously just something and not a form letter..

 

and yes this makes me rethink about an awsome mold job i was planning when i could afford it.. not sure i want to take the time just to see it go bye bye. was gonna have something to do with a solid stump with an insert ( the container) that is moulded to fit and blend really good (not like my large that i gotta repaint and mybe move about 15 feet lol)..

Share this post


Link to post

He's made it pretty darn clear that he won't be listing a new cache. A pic of the container would go a long way in fixing his damaged reputation.

 

I am not sure that his reputation has been damaged. He was the one who went public with it (which is not the normal reaction of someone who has been caught in the cookie jar). If I had a bogus hide, I would have figured it had played itself out and I had gotten as much mileage out of it as I could. His reaction was far different. He appeared to be genuinely mystified that the cache had been archived and angry when he learned the reason why. Like he had actually spent a long time constructing and placing a cache, checking on it at various points, only to have it archived.

 

People can choose to believe him or not. The local cachers who posted dnfs did not seem to doubt him and one's reputation in the forums may or may not be a priority. At this point, the only people I would show a picture to would be friends who bought me a beer (or two) and wanted to know how was the cache placed. I might invite a local reviewer to watch me remove the cache if the reviewer was sworn never to divulge that he saw me remove it. Either that, or I would make it a caching event and raffle off the container for charity (or sell it on ebay). But some things deserve an aura of mystery.

 

Perhaps it is the defense lawyer in me, but I am more curious about how anybody could make a determination that the cache was not there. Its probably the thing that has kept me interested in this thread.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like the cache owner could put an end to the controversy by simply sharing an image of his cache container.

Cache Owner- Please do not post an image of the cache container here.

 

If you spent so much time on it and it is real, re-hide it and publish it. Don't spoil it for your locals by showing it. I still think you should remove the description of it from that earlier post. If the cache is that good it will speak for itself once it’s published.

 

Hide it again and write up a new cache listing that will kill any rumors, you don't need to show any of us the cache. Don't let your hurt feelings about how your being "targeted" keep you from showing that you are in the right, if you are.

 

Most if not all your cache finders rave about your hides. To not keep hiding caches seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

(Line breaks added so that others may pick apart my opinion)

He's made it pretty darn clear that he won't be listing a new cache. A pic of the container would go a long way in fixing his damaged reputation.

I'd be more interested in what evidence gs used to conclude that a cache was not hidden at the location. Seems if they are making accusations they should have a way to back it up.

Seems like it would be easier to prove teh cache existed than to prove it doesn't. That being said, TPTB don't have to prove anything. All they would need is strong suspicion that the cache didn't exist.

If you called me a liar I'd tell you that until you had proof you could go pound salt. I don't see this as any different with the exception that the frog holds the keys to the front door. It's toe the line or get locked out.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would the CO republish it? Assuming his story is legit, the cat (or the brick) is out of the bag now.

Share this post


Link to post

Making an assumption that SuperFly is telling the truth about his brick cache (I have no reason to think otherwise), I am apalled that the Groundspeak staff would write the note that they did. Calling someone a liar with no proof is absolute garbage behavior.

 

I am beside myself with the thoughts about this situation. Seriously, there is a cache supposedly at the bottom of the ocean and TPTB let it stay listed but a reviewer from hundreds and hundreds of miles away feels it's cool to archive a cache in an area they don't typically police and Groundspeak staff back them up and call the cache owner a liar?

 

Come on. There has to be something that they know that they aren't saying.

 

I will add that it's my experience that some companies and their "employees" will NEVER admit they are wrong, no matter what proof is presented.

 

This whole thing is just apalling.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would the CO republish it? Assuming his story is legit, the cat (or the brick) is out of the bag now.

Would that keep you from enjoying finding it?

Share this post


Link to post
And you didn't simply send Groundspeak a pictures of the container in place, and open, because.....?

 

That would have put the whole issue to bed immediately.

Have you ever heard of Groundspeak asking for that level of proof? I haven't.

Yes. Yes I have.

 

For example, if someone claims that a set of railroad tracks are out of service, a reviewer may ask for photographic evidence to back up the claim. Same goes for a host of other issues.

Share this post


Link to post
And you didn't simply send Groundspeak a pictures of the container in place, and open, because.....?

 

That would have put the whole issue to bed immediately.

Have you ever heard of Groundspeak asking for that level of proof? I haven't.

Yes. Yes I have.

 

For example, if someone claims that a set of railroad tracks are out of service, a reviewer may ask for photographic evidence to back up the claim. Same goes for a host of other issues.

Before or after the cache has been listed for two years?

Share this post


Link to post
November 5 by Nomex (0 found)

As there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements.

 

Bolded emphasis is mine. I wonder if this may be where some complaints are originating from? Someone looking to place another cache maybe?

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
November 5 by Nomex (0 found)

As there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it to keep it from continually showing up in search lists, and to prevent it from blocking other cache placements.

 

Bolded emphasis is mine. I wonder if this may be where some complaints are originating from? Someone looking to place another cache maybe?

Just a thought.

That is a copy paste entry, I've seen it on every cache archive.

Share this post


Link to post

The 26 caches were archived by the cache owner. All 26 archival notes were edited by the local reviewer, -Tiki-. All the cache pages were then locked from further logs by the reveiwer. I don't know very many people who have had reviewers edit their cache logs, do you? Hence the "accusation" that there is angst and drama in the local caching community, and that the CO has had incidents with the local reveiwer that are not the norm in the world of Geocaching.

 

Very interesting...

 

We most likely won't ever know "the other side" of this story but we know from years of forum topics like this that there is always (or should I say, almost always) another side of the story. And almost always, when that other side was presented in the past, folks started rethinking their original conclusions.

 

I don't believe that reviewers or Groundspeak take actions like this out of the blue.

Share this post


Link to post

The 26 caches were archived by the cache owner. All 26 archival notes were edited by the local reviewer, -Tiki-. All the cache pages were then locked from further logs by the reveiwer. I don't know very many people who have had reviewers edit their cache logs, do you? Hence the "accusation" that there is angst and drama in the local caching community, and that the CO has had incidents with the local reveiwer that are not the norm in the world of Geocaching.

 

Very interesting...

 

We most likely won't ever know "the other side" of this story but we know from years of forum topics like this that there is always (or should I say, almost always) another side of the story. And almost always, when that other side was presented in the past, folks started rethinking their original conclusions.

 

I don't believe that reviewers or Groundspeak take actions like this out of the blue.

 

Yes, all very interesting. But where in all that is the evidence that THIS cache was not at the posted coordinates?

Share this post


Link to post

GEOCACHE .

In place since 2001, no finds, not even a DNF Do we file a NEEDS ARCHIVED on this one? Strange no one has looked for it.

 

Member Since: Wednesday, June 20, 2001

Last Visit: Never

Status: Not Validated Member (Give a Gift Membership)

 

Email Address: The "send message" feature is disabled because this email address has not been validated by the user.

Share this post


Link to post

GEOCACHE .

In place since 2001, no finds, not even a DNF Do we file a NEEDS ARCHIVED on this one? Strange no one has looked for it.

 

Member Since: Wednesday, June 20, 2001

Last Visit: Never

Status: Not Validated Member (Give a Gift Membership)

 

Email Address: The "send message" feature is disabled because this email address has not been validated by the user.

 

It looks like the geocaches near Ghana, Africa haven't been found either (last checked in the Spring).

 

I wonder if we need to recruit a California reviewer to check up on these?

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I mean I am not trying to be a smart a**, but according to this, this guy doesn't even exist anymore, in fact, placed the cache and bailed. Yeah Bittsen, My cousin is just getting into caching and she travels to Africa several times a year, I might add them to her list of "IMPOSSIBILITIES", Nomex, TPTB, wanna verify they exist? I have no contact for the CO for GEOCACHE, maybe you do.

(edited for clarity of subject)

Edited by Bergie Bunch

Share this post


Link to post

Why would the CO republish it? Assuming his story is legit, the cat (or the brick) is out of the bag now.

Would that keep you from enjoying finding it?

i know this question not targeted at me but yes yes it would.. when going after a difficult cache (for me at least) without a description of the container itself and how it is hidden then having someone tell me its right here and what it is just spoils it.. its like watching a suspense movie with someone in the room telling every plot twist and the ending in the first 5 minutes. just ruins the movie, same with this situation..

Share this post


Link to post

The 26 caches were archived by the cache owner. All 26 archival notes were edited by the local reviewer, -Tiki-. All the cache pages were then locked from further logs by the reveiwer. I don't know very many people who have had reviewers edit their cache logs, do you? Hence the "accusation" that there is angst and drama in the local caching community, and that the CO has had incidents with the local reveiwer that are not the norm in the world of Geocaching.

 

Very interesting...

 

We most likely won't ever know "the other side" of this story but we know from years of forum topics like this that there is always (or should I say, almost always) another side of the story. And almost always, when that other side was presented in the past, folks started rethinking their original conclusions.

 

I don't believe that reviewers or Groundspeak take actions like this out of the blue.

 

True! All I was trying to say before MooseMob stepped in was that that there has been controversy with this CO in the past.

 

This is not the first time however, that Groundspeak has archived a cache from afar that they deemed non-existent. I believe "Non-functional" is the proper term. :lol: That CO also had some controversy with Groundspeak. Head of the Hydra #3 would be that cache. Even though I DNF'd it, I know the CO, and he assures me a cache was in place. Besides, it looks like the MoonPie Geocacher actually found it.

Share this post


Link to post

Curiouser and curiouser. The e-mails were most revealing. Of course, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to private corporations like Geocaching/Ground Speak. But, since this has turned into a cause celebre, I am curious how Geocaching determined the the cache 'had probably never been in place'. There is definitely a lot that we are not being told, and which we will never been told. Which is sad, since we are all interested in knowing. Oh, well.

The wording, however, does remind me of a few cacher of whom I have heard, noted for pushing the envelope. They do tend to attract attention from TPTB. And generally migrate to other sites where attention to detail is not so great.

Curiouser and curiouser. I, for one, would like to know what tipped the scales here. Of that, we have heard nothing.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...