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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

Actually this thread has been so far off topic almost from the get-go.

I wouldn't say it was off topic.

There were 13 sentences in the OP. Most of the posts in here address either one of those 13 sentences, or the responses to one of those 13 sentences. If the question asked at the end of the other 12 sentences were all that the OP wanted to discuss, he wouldn't have typed the rest of it.

Share this post


Link to post

If it only ever happens .0003% (too many zeros?) of the time how could it (this topic) possibly be causing so much strife?

 

Roddy's response: I don't believe the chance is even REMOTELY part of the cause of the strife, that's a whole different thing altogether. Possibly snarky remarks, misrepresentation and a few other less than friendly actions would be the cause of any strife...you know, belittlement?

 

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and I tend to agree with you about the snarkyness. That might be a good word to describe many of my posts and I can see from your post that you consider it to be belittling. I will give this more thought and see if I can't come up with some snark that might not have as much negative impact. (Frog knows, there is precious little belittling going on around here! :angry: )

 

I've found over the years that very few people respond when I ask a logical question in a straight forward manner. I mean it is remarkable the number of times that a quiet, to-the-point question or comment goes by the wayside without some, how to say, emotional punctuation.

 

Question: I would like to know, however it can be asked, why is it that any of what has happened between this cache owner and Groundspeak has you so concerned if the chances of it happening to anyone else are so remote?

 

If you could address this question I would appreciate it. From there you might be able to have some friendly debate with several of us at a much reduced level of snark.

 

Edit for clarity, quote repair and typos.

Edited by Team Sagefox

Share this post


Link to post

An owner cannot be laid off.

 

Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect.

 

I know where you are coming from but sbell is right, an owner cannot be laid off from his business, just ask your state unemployment office.

You would be better described, perhaps, as an Owner in name, until, as The Rambler pointed out, you have the deed in your name.

When my Dad passed away I got the family farm, but it was not Legally mine until the deed was in my name, until then even though everyone around here considered me the owner, in the view of the state I was not.

 

I very carefully worded my response to say not on paper...some missed that. However, you are mistaken in that, had my dad ever drawn a paycheck, he could have drawn unemployment as part of how the situation is. Or so our paper pushers say!

Share this post


Link to post

 

Do you feel publicly humiliated?

Nope. Not at all. Did I ever claim I was, or is this just another desperate attempt to twist reality? :angry:

Of course if Groundspeak, (or Wally World, or Sears, or AT&T, etc), publically called me a liar, then I would feel humiliated. I suspect that anyone who makes it a point to comport themselves with honesty and integrity would also feel slighted by such a public claim. How about you? :unsure:

That was a question. If you had "claimed" you were, I would not need to ask. You did say "However, publicly humiliating their customers is probably not in their posted job descriptions." You are one of their customers and you used the word. I have not seen anyone else say they felt humiliated, so I was asking if you were referring to yourself.

Edited by traildad

Share this post


Link to post

 

Question: I would like to know, however it can be asked, why is it that any of what has happened between this cache owner and Groundspeak has you so concerned if the chances of it happening to anyone else are so remote?

 

 

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled. I have said this many times now. I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us as some like to sensationalize it, I consider it a bad handled siytuation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises.

 

I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice!

Share this post


Link to post

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled.

 

O.K. Thanks. My question was, for the most part, intended to address this exact point. Sorry I didn't get that across.

 

I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us... ...I consider it a bad handled situation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises.

 

Do you feel that GS has not gotten that message yet from this topic so far?

 

I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice!

 

Do you believe there is evidence that GS will handle future questionable cache situations in an unfair manner save for possibly one or two per year, or so?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Question: I would like to know, however it can be asked, why is it that any of what has happened between this cache owner and Groundspeak has you so concerned if the chances of it happening to anyone else are so remote?

 

 

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled. I have said this many times now. I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us as some like to sensationalize it, I consider it a bad handled siytuation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises.

 

I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice!

Since you really don't know what happened how can you say this? It might be that GS had way more that hearsay info. Do you have proof to the contrary. I doubt you have proof. So you are for sure convicting GS based totally on hearsay. All your accusations are based on hearsay.

 

Do you really think GS is going to have reviewers visit all caches in question. The standard you hold them to has to be rooted in the reality of the game we are playing. Otherwise the framework of the game falls apart. The game is not being played in the imaginary world where everyone is 100.000% honest and infallible with perfect integrity. Some are dishonest. Some misread or misunderstand guidelines. The human equation on both sides make it impossible to resolve all situations that may arise, in a "perfect" way.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled.

 

O.K. Thanks. My question was, for the most part, intended to address this exact point. Sorry I didn't get that across.

 

I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us... ...I consider it a bad handled situation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises.

 

Do you feel that GS has not gotten that message yet from this topic so far?

 

I would like to think so, but if the many posts which still believe otherwise is an indicator....

 

I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice!

 

Do you believe there is evidence that GS will handle future questionable cache situations in an unfair manner save for possibly one or two per year, or so?

 

Is that not enough?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Question: I would like to know, however it can be asked, why is it that any of what has happened between this cache owner and Groundspeak has you so concerned if the chances of it happening to anyone else are so remote?

 

 

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled. I have said this many times now. I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us as some like to sensationalize it, I consider it a bad handled siytuation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises.

 

I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice!

Since you really don't know what happened how can you say this? It might be that GS had way more that hearsay info. Do you have proof to the contrary. I doubt you have proof. So you are for sure convicting GS based totally on hearsay. All your accusations are based on hearsay.

 

Do you really think GS is going to have reviewers visit all caches in question. The standard you hold them to has to be rooted in the reality of the game we are playing. Otherwise the framework of the game falls apart. The game is not being played in the imaginary world where everyone is 100.000% honest and infallible with perfect integrity. Some are dishonest. Some misread or misunderstand guidelines. The human equation on both sides make it impossible to resolve all situations that may arise, in a "perfect" way.

 

I don't recall claiming this was fact, I do believe this to be the case though. Do you have proof to discredit my belief?

 

I believe most of us realize this isn't an ordinary "problem cache". I do think, if you're going to make such a claim as to call the CO a liar, you should go to extraordinary lengths to make sure you are right. Hey, if it were me, I would not only want to know, I would be taking appropriate actions. If I suspected the claims made to be true, I would make sure I could prove it beyond a doubt and then hand out a MUCH stiffer punishment. I would also make sure it was known what happened and that similar situations wuld be handled likewise. We all handle things differently of course...

Share this post


Link to post

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled.

 

O.K. Thanks. My question was, for the most part, intended to address this exact point. Sorry I didn't get that across.

 

I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us... ...I consider it a bad handled situation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises.

 

Do you feel that GS has not gotten that message yet from this topic so far?

 

I would like to think so, but if the many posts which still believe otherwise is an indicator....

 

I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice!

 

Do you believe there is evidence that GS will handle future questionable cache situations in an unfair manner save for possibly one or two per year, or so?

 

Is that not enough?

 

Thanks, again.

 

And that would be my question too. Is it not enough that GS has a very good record of treating people fairly over the past ten years?

 

Can they have a perfect record and still maintain order in this game which has existed quite nicely with very few rules? I don't expect that of them. I am very pleased with the game management so far.

 

I do get concerned when people jump down GS's throats for what I consider to be misunderstood points of contention. Almost always, in the past, when "the other side" of a story is presented the emotional whamy of a topic dies off. In this case we can't have the other side so it seems a bit pointless to me that folks keep trying to get at it and then when knowing they can't have it turn the big guns on GS.

 

In the unrealistic-to-me condition that some think GS needs a kick in the pants, well, didn't they get that on the first page?

 

I do get quite concerned for the volunteer reviewers when they get slammed for their actions, usually by folks who don't have both sides of the story. They donate far too many hours to their work to be treated unfairly on these pages.

 

And, almost above all, I think it is unnecessary for folks to be concerned about things that are never likely to happen to them or anyone they know.

 

This is where I stand on this topic. Nothing I have read over 30 pages has changed my opinion of GS and reviewer action. What has affected me is the "snarky" comment and I have taken that to heart.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled.

 

O.K. Thanks. My question was, for the most part, intended to address this exact point. Sorry I didn't get that across.

 

I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us... ...I consider it a bad handled situation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises.

 

Do you feel that GS has not gotten that message yet from this topic so far?

 

I would like to think so, but if the many posts which still believe otherwise is an indicator....

 

I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice!

 

Do you believe there is evidence that GS will handle future questionable cache situations in an unfair manner save for possibly one or two per year, or so?

 

Is that not enough?

 

Thanks, again.

 

And that would be my question too. Is it not enough that GS has a very good record of treating people fairly over the past ten years?

 

Can they have a perfect record and still maintain order in this game which has existed quite nicely with very few rules? I don't expect that of them. I am very pleased with the game management so far.

 

I do get concerned when people jump down GS's throats for what I consider to be misunderstood points of contention. Almost always, in the past, when "the other side" of a story is presented the emotional whamy of a topic dies off. In this case we can't have the other side so it seems a bit pointless to me that folks keep trying to get at it and then when knowing they can't have it turn the big guns on GS.

 

In the unrealistic-to-me condition that some think GS needs a kick in the pants, well, didn't they get that on the first page?

 

I do get quite concerned for the volunteer reviewers when they get slammed for their actions, usually by folks who don't have both sides of the story. They donate far too many hours to their work to be treated unfairly on these pages.

 

And, almost above all, I think it is unnecessary for folks to be concerned about things that are never likely to happen to them or anyone they know.

 

This is where I stand on this topic. Nothing I have read over 30 pages has changed my opinion of GS and reviewer action. What has affected me is the "snarky" comment and I have taken that to heart.

 

:angry:

 

I am amazed how you feel the need to "protect" the PTB from a thread in the forums, as if this thread is somehow vile and malicious and harmful to them. I find it somewhat comical that you feel you need to champion for the reviewers who seem quite capable of handling and even dishing out abuse quite nicely without your help...and yes Lep, I STILL feel you owe me a couple apologies!

 

Your "hidden" anger in that post seems less than sincere to me, it's almost as if you think we're going to buy that line or two and just fold camp and go home with our tails between our legs and apologies on our lips. You're acting as if this thread is somehow defaming and degrading to the PTB and the mods...where?? Are you now saying we had better all be good little sheep and never oh never question anything? And if we do make that unthinkable act of questioning TPTB, we'd surely best keep it to what? 2 pages at most? :unsure:

 

Sorry, didn't do much to move me. Maybe you missed the SEVERAL times I have posted my admiration, respect and appreciation for all you mentioned? :lol:

 

And again, PLEASE don't tell me what I should worry about. It's just not your call.

Share this post


Link to post

We all handle things differently of course...

:angry:

How can you say that after railing on for 30 pages about how this was handled? :unsure:

 

Honestly, Ed, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you now saying we had better all be good little sheep and never oh never question anything?

 

Nope.

 

And again, PLEASE don't tell me what I should worry about. It's just not your call.

 

It is true, you will have to decide what to worry about. But isn't it also true that if you bring those worries here they are likely to draw comments?

 

Edit to repair quote.

Edited by Team Sagefox

Share this post


Link to post

We all handle things differently of course...

:angry:

How can you say that after railing on for 30 pages about how this was handled? :unsure:

 

Honestly, Ed, plain and simple.

So you're okay with the fact that we all handle things differently, but this one was handled differently than you would have, but that's not okay?

 

I'm lost! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

We all handle things differently of course...

:angry:

How can you say that after railing on for 30 pages about how this was handled? :unsure:

 

Honestly, Ed, plain and simple.

So you're okay with the fact that we all handle things differently, but this one was handled differently than you would have, but that's not okay?

 

I'm lost! :lol:

 

I think it's clear what the problem is. There a HUGE difference between handling differently and handling BADLY.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you now saying we had better all be good little sheep and never oh never question anything?

 

Nope.

 

And again, PLEASE don't tell me what I should worry about. It's just not your call.

 

It is true, you will have to decide what to worry about. But isn't it also true that if you bring those worries here they are likely to draw comments?

 

Edit to repair quote.

 

Oh, just that we'd better not complain about what we question?? :angry:

 

Yep, and when you bring your comments here, I hope you realize you'll get replies.

Share this post


Link to post

An owner cannot be laid off.

 

Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect.

I'd put forth that this very statement means that you are not an owner.

Share this post


Link to post

An owner cannot be laid off.

 

Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect.

I'd put forth that this very statement means that you are not an owner.

Sorry Roddy, but I think you are busted on this one! :angry:

 

If it was on any other topic or in any other thread it wouldn't matter... but in this one it goes against everything that you've asked of Groundpeak.

Share this post


Link to post
Why is it that any of what has happened between this cache owner and Groundspeak has you so concerned?

I'll give it a go...

My personal values include honesty, integrity and fairness. These are part and parcel of who I am, and dictate how I react to the world around me, as well as how I expect to be treated by society. When I see one soul treat another soul poorly, I feel compelled to act. To make right what was wrong. These feelings are even stronger when I see a corporation treat someone poorly, because I recognize that the victim will likely never see a redress to their grievance, as successful corporations are quite good at shielding themselves from those they harm. That is probably what led to my career in law enforcement.

 

In this incident, I believe Nomex, acting as an agent of Groundspeak, treated Super Fly poorly.

 

I also believe that Groundspeak acted ignobly in supporting Nomex's behavior.

 

The reasons behind this belief have been spelled out several times over the last 30 pages or so.

 

Will it happen again?

 

I'd say the odds are strongly against it.

 

I'd also say that, due to my belief system, whether or not it happens again is not the issue.

 

It happened. That's what my concern is.

Share this post


Link to post
We all handle things differently of course...
:angry:

How can you say that after railing on for 30 pages about how this was handled? :unsure:

Honestly, Ed, plain and simple.
So you're okay with the fact that we all handle things differently, but this one was handled differently than you would have, but that's not okay?

 

I'm lost! :lol:

I think it's clear what the problem is. There a HUGE difference between handling differently and handling BADLY.
It was handled badly IN YOUR OPINION.

 

Your opinion stems from how you think you would have handled it.

 

The problem with this is that you don't have all the facts. None of us probably ever will. Until you have the facts, your OPINION on how this should have been handled is just that, an OPINION. Not a FACT.

 

I think what TAR is getting at is that what you seem to be saying is that it's ok to have different ways of handling something as long as it is YOUR WAY.

 

Edit: Speeling

Edited by Too Tall John

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

Whoa! Is 'they must be found in a certain time' a new Groundspeak policy?

 

November 28 by RoadRunner (83 found)

This cache has an inordinate amount of cachers not finding the cache. Please check on this cache and repair or replace as you see fit. If you chose not to replace it, please post an archive log.

 

:unsure:

 

This is the first time I have wondered if this thread had any relevance... there may be more to this than meets the eye! :angry:

 

"repair or replace as you see fit" assumes that if folks aren't finding it that there is something wrong.

 

"If you choose not to replace it" pretty much assumes that the cache is not there!

 

Does RoadRunner somehow know that the cache is not there?

 

Why disable it, why not ask the CO first?

 

Perhaps Groundspeak SHOULD now offer some clarification!

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

I would like to see a change to the guideline if reviewers are going to go after every cache that has "an inordinate amount of cachers not finding the cache". What constitutes inordinate? This cache is there for three days. One might wait to see if the cache owner is going to provide an addtional hint. The cache in this thread was "in place" for two years before getting archived. At that point I would certainly suspect the cache owner didn't want the cache to be found. This one in Arizona is in my opinion too soon. Give it a few weeks and then if the cache owner doesn't respond treat it as a missing cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

Lotta bricks on that wall... :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Why is it that any of what has happened between this cache owner and Groundspeak has you so concerned?

I'll give it a go...

My personal values include honesty, integrity and fairness. These are part and parcel of who I am, and dictate how I react to the world around me, as well as how I expect to be treated by society. When I see one soul treat another soul poorly, I feel compelled to act. To make right what was wrong.

 

If you'll pay attention, you'll find that what the detractors to your "Groundspeak Can Do No Wrong, Hallielujah and Amen" phylosiphy have a problem with is how Nomex chose to act upon his beliefs.

When you make statements like the one directly above, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity and fairness. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
We all handle things differently of course...
:angry:

How can you say that after railing on for 30 pages about how this was handled? :unsure:

Honestly, Ed, plain and simple.
So you're okay with the fact that we all handle things differently, but this one was handled differently than you would have, but that's not okay?

 

I'm lost! :lol:

I think it's clear what the problem is. There a HUGE difference between handling differently and handling BADLY.
It was handled badly IN YOUR OPINION.

 

Your opinion stems from how you think you would have handled it.

 

The problem with this is that you don't have all the facts. None of us probably ever will. Until you have the facts, your OPINION on how this should have been handled is just that, an OPINION. Not a FACT.

 

I think what TAR is getting at is that what you seem to be saying is that it's ok to have different ways of handling something as long as it is YOUR WAY.

 

Edit: Speeling

 

You're making statements not backed by the facts. I never said anything about how I'd handle it fitting into how I feel THEY should handle it...and I believe my posts would support this.

Share this post


Link to post
All your accusations are based on hearsay.

Pot meet Kettle. With the definite exception of Super Fly, and the possible exception of some imaginary person he may have told, every single post in this thread has been based on speculation, hearsay and deduction. It's the nature of the beast. No one, (but SF), really knows if this cache existed at the time it was archived, or if it ever existed at all. The reviewers know going into the job that many of their decisions will need to be made based solely on guesswork. They usually do the best they can, and few people fault them for it.

 

But then, that's not the issue here...

 

I do get quite concerned for the volunteer reviewers when they get slammed for their actions, usually by folks who don't have both sides of the story. They donate far too many hours to their work to be treated unfairly on these pages.

Good post. I have what I like to believe is a very positive relationship with my local reviewers. Bob, Meg, Ed, (and if he's still in that role, Greg), are all folks I would have no problem trusting. I've cached with them, attended events with them, worked with land managers with them and annoyed the heck out of them when I inadvertently cross a guideline. I consider them to be friends, and there's not much I wouldn't do for them. If I saw one of them being treated unfairly, I would be their staunchest supporter.

 

However, I think the same should apply to us, the lowly masses who hide all the caches. We also donate countless hours toward the continuation of this game, and as such, we should be afforded some measure of professional courtesy from TPTB. For the most part, that is exactly what we, the customer, gets from everyone involved, from Jeremy himself, to the newest reviewer. But I don't think that's what Super Fly got this time around. Did he deserve rude treatment? It's quite possible he did. However, it is my belief that such rude treatment should not have been done publicly, unless an explanation is equally public.

Share this post


Link to post

An owner cannot be laid off.

 

Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect.

I'd put forth that this very statement means that you are not an owner.

Sorry Roddy, but I think you are busted on this one! :angry:

 

If it was on any other topic or in any other thread it wouldn't matter... but in this one it goes against everything that you've asked of Groundpeak.

 

And again, you are both WRONG! If you have ANY proof to back your claims, please provide. You guys neither one have even a hint as to my business, not a clue, yet you'd like to call me a liar....

 

Maybe you'd best to get your facts straight before publically calling someone a liar...sound familiar? It might even interest you to know I have solid PROOF I am a co-owner of the course....but then, facts and proof don't seem to mean much to you two, does it?

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

 

WOW....anyone still think this is an one and out situation? Anyone need more reason to wonder? Got this one on my watchlist!

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

 

Still what is the rule on this one thats all I care about. Team Sagefox I agree with what you have posted but I also want to know what the rules are. I dont care about this threads beginning but with the different caches getting axed why doesnt this one?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

I have found it it is very tough. It has the some of the same things in common as the other caches, first alot of cachers spent alot of time looking with no luck, second they posted DNF logs stating the amount of time involved in looking, and a few cachers will find it then a dry spell with no finders than a few finders than it will go missing and be replaced. Should the CO be worried that it will be axed like the others? I know the CO personaly and I know the cache is there and she is not playing games with the cache. But would some rule that we dont know get this one yanked? It does seem that as this "thread" (I use that term loosley) goes on more caches are coming up that are getting axed.

 

Please GS let us know the rules we live by thats all

Share this post


Link to post

When you make statements like the one directly above, you have no room to be preaching about honesty, integrity and fairness. :angry:

Sorry. Maybe I'm just dense tonight, but I'm not following your logic. Are you saying I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I suggested you weren't paying attention? Or are you saying I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I labeled the opposing side to your view as detractors? Or could it be that I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I misspelled philosophy? Perhaps you feel I am dishonest, lacking integrity and unfair because I mentioned that the other side to this debate has an issue with how Nomex handled it?

 

Please clarify. :lol:

 

If you can. :unsure:

 

Thanx! :D

Share this post


Link to post

You're making statements not backed by the facts. I never said anything about how I'd handle it fitting into how I feel THEY should handle it...and I believe my posts would support this.

Back in the early days of this thread you stated repeatedly how a business 'should' have handled this and how you as a business owner would have handled it.

 

Anywho, with this new cache incident I mentioned in post 1473 I am beginning to wonder if this is a new policy and if Groundspeak should 'handle it' with an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post

You're making statements not backed by the facts. I never said anything about how I'd handle it fitting into how I feel THEY should handle it...and I believe my posts would support this.

Back in the early days of this thread you stated repeatedly how a business 'should' have handled this and how you as a business owner would have handled it.

 

Anywho, with this new cache incident I mentioned in post 1473 I am beginning to wonder if this is a new policy and if Groundspeak should 'handle it' with an explanation.

 

And again TAR, I never said how I'd handle it is how they should. I'd say either put up or....

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

An owner cannot be laid off.

 

Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect.

I'd put forth that this very statement means that you are not an owner.

Sorry Roddy, but I think you are busted on this one! :angry:

 

If it was on any other topic or in any other thread it wouldn't matter... but in this one it goes against everything that you've asked of Groundpeak.

 

And again, you are both WRONG! If you have ANY proof to back your claims, please provide. You guys neither one have even a hint as to my business, not a clue, yet you'd like to call me a liar....

 

Maybe you'd best to get your facts straight before publically calling someone a liar...sound familiar? It might even interest you to know I have solid PROOF I am a co-owner of the course....but then, facts and proof don't seem to mean much to you two, does it?

Keep in mind that I like you, I like your reputation, I enjoyed meeting you at GeoCoinFest and hope to again, so this is NOT personal and I am certainly not out to make you look bad, and I am not calling you a liar. I am saying that based on the posts that you presented it does not sound to me like you "own" the business.

 

Again, this would be relevant in no other thread but one where you are questioning the motives, integrity and behavior of another, or stating that as a business owner you would have handled it differently.

 

I hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

An owner cannot be laid off.

 

Hummmm....seems I have been every year for the last 30 years. I'd have to say your statement is incorrect.

I'd put forth that this very statement means that you are not an owner.

Sorry Roddy, but I think you are busted on this one! :angry:

 

If it was on any other topic or in any other thread it wouldn't matter... but in this one it goes against everything that you've asked of Groundpeak.

 

And again, you are both WRONG! If you have ANY proof to back your claims, please provide. You guys neither one have even a hint as to my business, not a clue, yet you'd like to call me a liar....

 

Maybe you'd best to get your facts straight before publically calling someone a liar...sound familiar? It might even interest you to know I have solid PROOF I am a co-owner of the course....but then, facts and proof don't seem to mean much to you two, does it?

Keep in mind that I like you, I like your reputation, I enjoyed meeting you at GeoCoinFest and hope to again, so this is NOT personal and I am certainly not out to make you look bad, and I am not calling you a liar. I am saying that based on the posts that you presented it does not sound to me like you "own" the business.

 

Again, this would be relevant in no other thread but one where you are questioning the motives, integrity and behavior of another, or stating that as a business owner you would have handled it differently.

 

I hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. :unsure:

 

Not a problem there, I echo your sentiments. However, you are mistaken, simple as this. As I said, you are free to prove otherwise, I'm not going to do that for you. You made the statement, you'll have to back it if you can.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

 

Another out of state reviewer disabling a cache after the owner did a maintenance visit, 5 logs earlier.

Anyone else having a bit of Deja Vu

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

Lotta bricks on that wall... :angry:

Sorry to interrupt again, but how many of us following this thread would have been on that wall like butter on popcorn?

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

Lotta bricks on that wall... :lol:

Sorry to interrupt again, but how many of us following this thread would have been on that wall like butter on popcorn?

:angry::unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

 

Question: I would like to know, however it can be asked, why is it that any of what has happened between this cache owner and Groundspeak has you so concerned if the chances of it happening to anyone else are so remote?

 

 

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled. I have said this many times now. I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us as some like to sensationalize it, I consider it a bad handled siytuation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises.

 

I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice!

Let's do some roleplaying. You be the reviewer. I'll be a cache owner. Someone contacted you and told you that I told them that my cache didn't exist. They asked you to protect their privacy.

 

How would you handle it?

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

 

Another out of state reviewer disabling a cache after the owner did a maintenance visit, 5 logs earlier.

Anyone else having a bit of Deja Vu

Being out of state is irrelevant.

 

Most Reviewers review out of their local area, and any Reviewer can review anywhere at any time. When I became a Reviewer I was assigned Arkansas and Alabama, though I lived in Alabama and had never cached in Arkansas. During my tenure I reviewed caches in several states as needed. If I needed time away from the computer any available Reviewer could fill in for me.

 

Some Reviewers 'rove' all over the world, some review countries they've never been to. Reviewers who have the time and inclination can look at any area for issues that need to be addressed. Location is not a part of this issue.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Question: I would like to know, however it can be asked, why is it that any of what has happened between this cache owner and Groundspeak has you so concerned if the chances of it happening to anyone else are so remote?

 

 

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled. I have said this many times now. I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us as some like to sensationalize it, I consider it a bad handled siytuation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises.

 

I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice!

Let's do some roleplaying. You be the reviewer. I'll be a cache owner. Someone contacted you and told you that I told them that my cache didn't exist. They asked you to protect their privacy.

 

How would you handle it?

 

It certainly wouldn't end with me calling the CO a liar on the cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

Lotta bricks on that wall... :angry:

Sorry to interrupt again, but how many of us following this thread would have been on that wall like butter on popcorn?

 

LOL!! Wholly! Its like live chat now.I read the last post click out and theres another..can we at least setup

a schedule for pee breaks?

Edited by spektrum2

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

Lotta bricks on that wall... :angry:

Sorry to interrupt again, but how many of us following this thread would have been on that wall like butter on popcorn?

 

I was all over that wall. Those bricks are real.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

 

Another out of state reviewer disabling a cache after the owner did a maintenance visit, 5 logs earlier.

Anyone else having a bit of Deja Vu

 

Reading the Disable log left by RoadRunner I thought this might be an unfair statement. A quick check revealed that this cache was Published by RoadRunner. I see Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking has already chimed in on this non issue.

 

But is also unfair to steal a snippet from a previous post by a Groundspeak Lackey? I'll give it a shot without including the name.

It's an unusual case. Perhaps that judgment can be reexamined and, if the cache was archived disabled in error, the simple remedy is to unarchive re-enable it. Not a big deal.

 

I think if this thread isn't locked, we are certainly going to surpass 2000 posts now. I can't wait to hear how Groundspeak didn't also publicly call that cache owner a liar.

 

edit: My bad. I had to substitute Disabled for Archived. For now.

Edited by Cardinal Red

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

 

The cache owner checked on it twice, and posted on it. The cache owner told someone who was looking for it that he was within 20 feet of it. The cacher at the time was standing a few feet from where the gps zeroed out at. This was not posted on the site, but I heard about it today when I was searching or it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Question: I would like to know, however it can be asked, why is it that any of what has happened between this cache owner and Groundspeak has you so concerned if the chances of it happening to anyone else are so remote?

 

 

I am not so much concerned with the hows of this situation, but how handled. I have said this many times now. I don't consider this to be such an impact that the world is caving on us as some like to sensationalize it, I consider it a bad handled siytuation which I hope would be handled better if the situation arises.

 

I would like to know that, if one of my caches were questioned, it would be investigated thoroughly and not rely upon hearsay as the deciding point though, that would also be nice!

Let's do some roleplaying. You be the reviewer. I'll be a cache owner. Someone contacted you and told you that I told them that my cache didn't exist. They asked you to protect their privacy.

 

How would you handle it?

 

It certainly wouldn't end with me calling the CO a liar on the cache page.

We'll get to how you would end it in a bit. How would you start?

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently this is not an isolated event. A local cache only a couple of days old was just disabled because no one was finding it.

 

GC21D5M

That cache wasn't archived. It was disabled.

 

It's not unheard of for a new cache that has lots of DNFs to need some maintenance from the cache owner. Perhaps the coords are bad. Perhaps it is no longer there. All the cache owner has to do is ceck up on it and make sure that the cache page info is good.

 

The cache owner (or spouse) DID check on it and stated that it was still in place.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...