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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

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?

Of course it would. Solving a puzzle is much more satisfying than being handed the answer. But I was asking the question from the point of view of the cache owner: Assuming I'd spent a year building some brilliant cache concept, why would I want to resubmit it after the secret was out? The whole point of going through all that effort would be in waiting for someone to figure it 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.

Would that keep you from enjoying finding it?

Of course it would. Solving a puzzle is much more satisfying than being handed the answer. But I was asking the question from the point of view of the cache owner: Assuming I'd spent a year building some brilliant cache concept, why would I want to resubmit it after the secret was out? The whole point of going through all that effort would be in waiting for someone to figure it out.

 

I have to agree.I want my 1st hide to be special.The creativity side of hiding caches appeals to me as much as finding.I'd lose interest after all this and move on to a new hide as well.

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?

Why do you think time is factor?

Share this post


Link to post
Why do you think time is factor?

If a reviewer questions a cache placement due to the possibility of rail road tracks, the conversation will likely occur prior to the cache being published, not two years after the cache was determined to be within the guidelines and published. But then, you already knew that. My original question should have been more clear: Have you ever heard of a reviewer demanding proof that a cache is in place, as opposed to them simply taking the owner's word for it? I've seen instances where a reviewer might feel that a cache, in the creation process, might have been submitted prematurely, and they send a note to the owner asking for clarification, however I have never seen a reviewer demand proof. How many caches do you own? Have you sent pictures of the cache containers, in place, to the reviewer? If a reviewer asked you to check on one of your caches, (due to a NM, SBA or bunch of DNFs), would you check it, and post a note to that effect, or would you digitally document the existence of your cache, submitting proof to TPTB? Should Groundspeak no longer trust us, as cache owners? If a reviewer called you a liar on a publicly viewable website, after you did everything they asked you to do, would you be OK with that?

Edited by Clan Riffster

Share this post


Link to post
first, you pass judgement well for someone with no knowledge of the CO and for being so far away.

 

What is telling to me is the fact that the local reviewers know the cache owner, his reputation and the situation. If they felt that Nomex was out of line it would have been simple for one of them to say "Thanks for your assistance Nomex, but I think you missed the boat on this one". The simple fact that they have not done so speaks volumes and says to me that there is more going on with this cache than the CO is telling or or the other busybodies here are aware of.

Share this post


Link to post

I am going to go out on a limb here, as an owner of some caches, It is possible that people put in a needs to be archived request and the cache owner came through and deleted those logs. I honestly hope that Groundspeak does the right thing and will unarchive this cache. Do we know if Super Fly ever got an answer back from GS?

Share this post


Link to post

What is telling to me is the fact that the local reviewers know the cache owner, his reputation and the situation. If they felt that Nomex was out of line it would have been simple for one of them to say "Thanks for your assistance Nomex, but I think you missed the boat on this one". The simple fact that they have not done so speaks volumes and says to me that there is more going on with this cache than the CO is telling or or the other busybodies here are aware of.

 

I suspect that Nomex was asked to step in as an impartial out-of-area reviewer to take an action that they knew was going to be unpopular in the area in order to protect the reputation of the local reviewers among the local caching community.

 

I think the cachers out there should take note of Groundspeak's decision in this matter... if your cache is imposible to find (however Groundspeak might define that) then it might be archived. If you have a "six star" difficulty caches out there you might want to think about spoiling it down to a 5-star.

Share this post


Link to post

Do we know if Super Fly ever got an answer back from GS?

The cache owner chose to post part of the correspondence exchanged with Groundspeak. You can see those messages beginning here on page two of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to reply to the Super Fly controversy over GC171MH . I am not happy with Groundspeak's decision regarding his cache. He obviously spent a lot of time making his container virtually invisible to the naked eye. Is this to mean that all the fake rocks in rock piles will need to be archived. Or how about my twig in a tree? It has been found several times, yet the same twig stuck in the center of a pile of rocks has only been found once. I have many cache containers that are difficult to find. Will my caches be next?

 

There are many other ways to handle this problem. We had a confirmed case of foolery near here in which the cache owner was ACTUALLY CAUGHT doing what they claim Super Fly is accused of. The word got around and whenever he publishes a cache NOBODY GOES LOOKING.

 

Do I believe Super Fly is capable of such deceit? IMPOSSIBLE! I have found several of his amazing, crafty, and shall I say ingenious containers. When I saw the picture, I immediately thought of a fake brick. I have one similar, though not as well made, as the one he says he made.

 

As I said before, I am not happy with Grounspeak's decision, but then, who am I but one of the thousands that pay their salaries and spread the word about geocaching. What damage can one disgruntled patron cost a company? Quite a lot, I would guess. You can ask my local car dealer. He lost $30,000 in one month due to only one disgruntled customer........

 

These sentiments are merely my own and do not reflect those of my caching partner Stinky, so don't take it out on him.

 

Sincerely Yours,

Ubear

Share this post


Link to post

As a northern California cacher and cache placer I have dealings with Nomex quite often. He has disallowed caches of mine and he has archived ongoing popular caches of mine. And - with the exception of one questionable call that I disagreed with - I have found him to be fair in his rulings and attentive to my concerns. He is quick to publish and has always been readily available in matters of geocaching.

 

This current case is curious to be sure and I don't know what to make of it but to call Nomex rogue is certainly overstating the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
I think the cachers out there should take note of Groundspeak's decision in this matter... if your cache is imposible to find (however Groundspeak might define that) then it might be archived.

 

I think the fact that there are dozens of "impossible to find" caches out there that have never been archived for that reason says that your thought is flawed. This appears to be a unique situation and the details are between the CO and Groundspeak.

Edited by briansnat

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?

Why do you think time is factor?

The "before" vs "after" was my point. Your example has a very different set of circumstances under which the reviewer is operating. (Also, Riffster made my point better up in #154).

 

I don't know the CO here personally, but he's been around a very long time, and he's hidden some highly regarded caches. That's what I'm basing my assumptions about this situation on; others here are basing their assumptions on the logs of his other hides. I don't know who is right, but I have at least as much reason to believe the listing was real as others have that is was a gag.

Edited by Dinoprophet

Share this post


Link to post

There are other options as well. While I love this site and am considering becoming a premium member in the near future I have found another site that has less caches but when we went after a couple we found them to be in much better condition as well as being hidden better and further off the beaten path the co could always place this cache on this site. I will not say the site name here it starts with a T and was found with google. It was a pain to get going on the site but worth it and honestly we have been debating on whether to place caches here or there for several reason a few being less traffic there as well as the listings are rated by the community instead of a mile long list of rules on their acceptability as a cache meaning if its not appropriate it is weeded out by people looking or finding instead of one person or a couple making all the decisions.

To make it clear I am NOT bashing this site but they both have their positives and negatives.

Share this post


Link to post
What is telling to me is the fact that the local reviewers know the cache owner, his reputation and the situation.

That may be the most telling part of all.

(Except for the "know the situation" part. Apparently they got that one wrong)

 

I am not a reviewer, so it's hard for me to put myself in their shoes, but I'll try.

 

The local reviewers all claimed to have been so busy that they needed the assistance of another reviewer.

 

It happens.

 

What, exactly, were they busy with? Were they swamped with cache submissions? Did they have gobs of maintenance chores that needed done? Did life get in the way? For all of them? At the same time? And did whatever occur to cause them to be so busy the first time occur again, one month later? To all of the local reviewers?

 

Or, did the local reviewers develop a belief that there was no cache in place, and, fearing cache retribution from Super Fly, ask for some help from a reviewer half a country away, contriving the "We're Busy" excuse as a means of getting Nomex involved?

 

I would think that, if the local reviewers were so busy that they could not see to their regular duties, someone coming from another region would prioritize, taking care of new cache submissions first, then, if time allowed, scanning the area for caches with NMs or SBAs that need to be addressed. How many caches did Nomex publish in that area, that day? How many NMs and SBAs did he address? I can't imagine that he would make a virtual cross country trip, to help out some swamped reviewers, and have nothing to show for his troubles other than archiving a cache whose existence was never publicly questioned. Doing that, rather than focusing his energy on assisting with whatever workload was so intense that it surpassed the abilities of the locals, kinda makes Nomex look like the busybody.

 

By asking that this incident be taken to the forums, the local reviewers requested the input of the community. As such, I hardly think that those of us who have posted our opinions are "busybodies". Because this has been brought out in the open, at the request of the local reviewers, we are now involved, like it or not. Circling the wagons will not help. The other parties involved, (Groundspeak, Nomex, the local reviewers & Super Fly), have all had ample opportunity to reply to the many questions and comments in here. As of this writing, only Super Fly has done so. That is certainly telling. The silence of the other people involved speaks volumes.

 

If this was just a case of a disgruntled cacher spewing hate and discontent, I could accept the silence of TPTB, as not wanting to lower themselves to the hater's level by responding. However, such is not the case. We've seen what are, to all outward appearances, legitimate accusations of abuse against a cache hider, claiming that he is being punished simply because he created a challenging hide.

 

Super Fly submitted a cache, which was found to be in conformity with the guidelines.

This cache was published.

There was not a single NM or SBA posted to the cache page.

Two years after it was published, a reviewer asked that Super Fly check on his cache.

Super Fly, being a conscientious owner, acquiesced to their request, checking his cache, reporting back that all was well.

Then his cache was archived. :anicute:

Then TPTB called him a liar in an open format. :anibad:

 

So, yeah. I think Groundspeak should reply.

 

If everything is legitimate, they could clear this up with just a few pecks on a keyboard.

 

Or they could continue their policy of silence, leaving the rest of us concerned. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

 

I suspect that Nomex was asked to step in as an impartial out-of-area reviewer to take an action that they knew was going to be unpopular in the area in order to protect the reputation of the local reviewers among the local caching community.

 

I think the cachers out there should take note of Groundspeak's decision in this matter... if your cache is imposible to find (however Groundspeak might define that) then it might be archived. If you have a "six star" difficulty caches out there you might want to think about spoiling it down to a 5-star.

 

I really hope this is not the case. I have met, and like, all of our local reviewers here (in Grand Rapids). I would be very disappointed that our local reviewers would chicken out of the responsibilities they volunteered for in such a way.

 

I have looked (and mostly found) many caches by "SuperFly" and his prior geocaching.com name "Team Desert Eagle". I have learned that his idea of a fun cache is different from mine. I have expressed my disappointment to him personally a couple of times. We have agreed to disagree -- for the simple fact that it makes no difference whatsoever! Geocaching is simply a game. Period. I am still happy to see him at events and on the cache trail. Even though there are a couple of his caches I will never spend any time on.

 

I have found him to be an honorable and decent fellow. If, as I believe, the cache has been there all along, TPTB have some apologies to make. The failure to make these apologies would constitute, in my mind, dishonorable behavior. And I have a long-standing, personal policy of never doing business with dishonorable persons.

 

It has been said that TPTB have no obligation to me other than as a listing service for geocaches and that they have every right to set the rules, and enforce them, as they see fit.

 

This is very true. I will not argue with it for one minute.

 

Just as I have no obligation to remain a paying member of geocaching.com...

 

If they wish to keep their status as the largest geocaching listing service, I would humbly suggest they not unfairly antagonize the most prolific cache hider in West Michigan.

 

It is clear that this event has troubled a great many people. It does not look even remotely like good business practice for a company whose very existence relies ultimately with the people who hide geocaches.

 

The outcry over this one event should be a wake-up call to TPTB.

 

I certainly have no intention of hiding any more caches until I have confidence this will not happen to me. After all, only three of my caches have over 50 total finds and one hasn't been found since May. A couple of folks have spent just as many hours trying to solve my puzzles as they looked for SF#30.

 

Are my caches going to be archived because someone has decided my puzzles are too hard?

I hope not, but after this I can no longer be sure...

Share this post


Link to post

Reading stuff like this coupled with some other situations really doesn't encourage me to hide anything either. There seem to be unspoken rules and regs that are subjective at best and unequally enforced. People complain about film cans yet when a good one comes along it's tossed with no evidence that it isn't there. The guy checked. The guy verified it still there. He fulfilled his responsibility. To archive it afterward is dishonorable indeed.

Share this post


Link to post

Rather than being busybodies I think many people are concerned about the procedures that are used to investigate whether a cache is there or if the cache owner has lied. As I wrote earlier, I am not sure how anyone can do this without contacting the CO - which the CO states did not happen.

Share this post


Link to post

I really hope this is not the case. I have met, and like, all of our local reviewers here (in Grand Rapids). I would be very disappointed that our local reviewers would chicken out of the responsibilities they volunteered for in such a way.

 

It might not be "chickening out" - it could be that they felt they had a conflict of interests, previous entanglement or something similar. We can only speculate at this time.

 

I certainly have no intention of hiding any more caches until I have confidence this will not happen to me. After all, only three of my caches have over 50 total finds and one hasn't been found since May. A couple of folks have spent just as many hours trying to solve my puzzles as they looked for SF#30.

 

Are my caches going to be archived because someone has decided my puzzles are too hard?

I hope not, but after this I can no longer be sure...

 

If your cache has finds, then it's hardly the same circumstance. I don't think the sky is actually falling, Mr. Little. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

It appears that we have another unwritten guideline. "There must be an actual cache to find. If there is no cache the listing may be archived."

 

Now this probably should be a guideline. The reason why it isn't may be because it is so obvious. My guess is that like other unwritten guidelines this has been discussed in the reviewer forum and Groundspeak has given guidance. It seems clear that there have been cases where the was no cache. The obvious case is where a cache goes missing and an owner never bothers to replace it, but I would guess that there has been at least one case of someone posting a listing for a cache that was never there to find in the first place. So let's assume that if a reviewer believes there is no cache to find they can archive the listing.

 

Now the question comes up as to what a cache owner can do to convince a reviewer that there is a cache to be found? It is now obvious that simply posting on the page that you have checked the cache is not enough. Someone who is actually posting a bogus cache listing could easily lie about the cache still being there. My guess is that if a cache owner has reputation for being less than honest with the reviewers, they may be less likely to believe them. I suppose that providing a photograph that reveals the cache to the reviewer might provide more "proof", although if they are disinclined to believe you might have trouble convincing them that your photograph is genuine. It may be the only recourse would be for the cache owner to take the reviewer to the cache site and show them the cache.

 

Unwritten guidelines, even if they make sense like this one, are bad because cache owners are confused about why their cache is be being archived or disabled. In this case, Super Fly may have thought that there was a question about him doing maintenance on his cache. So he went and did a maintenance visit and thought that would end the issue. He felt that posting a note that he had checked on the cache would fulfill the required owner maintenance. But in reality it was the unwritten guideline that there must be a cache to find. Since this was a question about whether or not there was ever a cache there the reviewer should have been more explicit about what needed to be done to provide proof that there was a cache and it is just that hard to find. Had the "unwritten" guideline been made explicit the owner would have known better what to do.

 

In Nomex's defense he did invite the cache owner to "to email me via the link on my Profile if you have any questions." It is probably good practice to take up the reviewers invitation and get more information on what action you need to take instead of trying to guess when they refer to a guideline that might not actually apply.

Share this post


Link to post
t appears that we have another unwritten guideline. "There must be an actual cache to find. If there is no cache the listing may be archived."

 

I would think that there would be no need to write something like that into the guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
t appears that we have another unwritten guideline. "There must be an actual cache to find. If there is no cache the listing may be archived."

 

I would think that there would be no need to write something like that into the guidelines.

It is written down anyway (even though I agree there should be no need).

 

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

 

If there is no container and no logbook, there is no cache. Seems clear enough to me.

Share this post


Link to post

My goodness some people I believe are overreacting. Cache owners shouldnt start fearing for their caches, as if the very people who spend hours helping give us a good time in making the game run smooth, are out to get us. This is one single case, one that we dont know the whole picture on.

 

BTW, I found this posting very interesting from Keystone. "The cache owner chose to post part of the correspondence exchanged with Groundspeak. You can see those messages beginning here on page two of the thread."

 

Part? What is the CO keeping from us?

Share this post


Link to post

I really hope this is not the case. I have met, and like, all of our local reviewers here (in Grand Rapids). I would be very disappointed that our local reviewers would chicken out of the responsibilities they volunteered for in such a way.

 

It might not be "chickening out" - it could be that they felt they had a conflict of interests, previous entanglement or something similar. We can only speculate at this time.

 

I certainly have no intention of hiding any more caches until I have confidence this will not happen to me. After all, only three of my caches have over 50 total finds and one hasn't been found since May. A couple of folks have spent just as many hours trying to solve my puzzles as they looked for SF#30.

 

Are my caches going to be archived because someone has decided my puzzles are too hard?

I hope not, but after this I can no longer be sure...

 

If your cache has finds, then it's hardly the same circumstance. I don't think the sky is actually falling, Mr. Little. :lol:

 

By all means, let's engage in petty name-calling to minimize the legitimate concerns of users of this forum.

I obviously disagree that this is not the same circumstance.

 

All puzzle cache hiders are looking to make their next cache a little bit "better". For some, this means making it harder. All new caches start out with no finds. A really difficult one will have no finds for a considerable length of time. THIS is the circumstance I was primarily referring to. You know, the "hiding any more caches" bit. If I spend several hours (or days) coming up with a devilishly clever and difficult puzzle, I want to know if it will be worthwhile or if some reviewer is going to decide that it is "impossible" to find without asking for details first.

 

As for my "chickening out" statement, I stand by it. If there are mitigating circumstances, where are they noted? The CO claims he was never made aware of them. No one else is talking. The fact that "we can only speculate" is entirely the point. All we are left with is the feeling that some important decisions are arbitrary and subject to the whims of the reviewer corps. I don't like this feeling...and obviously this is shared by most of the posters in this thread.

 

The solution is for TPTB to explain themselves. They have all the information. It would only take a few minutes. That they have so far refused to do so speaks volumes.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak offers a service, yes, but it also sells a product. Because of that, I believe that it would be irresponsible to not address these concerns in this forum.

 

I can see Groundspeak keeping the reasons to themselves if they were offering a free service (only) but since they sell memberships, they should answer our concerns. If not for any other reason, to assure those who pay the light bill (and a few salaries) that there is no cause for concern that this is a trend. We need to be reassured of the resons for calling this member a liar. We need to be reassured that this is a rare case and not indicative of an unreported norm. We need to be reassured that WE are the ones who Groundspeak is providing a service and not that we are the ones who answer to Groundspeak.

 

It is beginning to appear that Groundspeak is not the benevolent entity that some of us believe it to be. It's beginning to seem like Groundspeak is trying to control a little too much.

 

IMHO

Share this post


Link to post

All puzzle cache hiders are looking to make their next cache a little bit "better". For some, this means making it harder. All new caches start out with no finds. A really difficult one will have no finds for a considerable length of time. THIS is the circumstance I was primarily referring to. You know, the "hiding any more caches" bit. If I spend several hours (or days) coming up with a devilishly clever and difficult puzzle, I want to know if it will be worthwhile or if some reviewer is going to decide that it is "impossible" to find without asking for details first.

Unlike a bogus listing for a cache that is not there, there is a written guideline regarding puzzles that are not solvable or require information not available to the general geoaching community

The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page.

There have been instances in the past were reviewers have asked for additional information to verify that a puzzle meets this guideline. I believe I have even heard of a case where a cacher was allowed to have the puzzle reviewed by a non-local reviewer to prevent the solution from leaking to the local community.

 

Now there is a question about whether after a puzzle is reviewed, the reviewers could then archive it because no one had solved it after some amount of time. I believe that like any other guideline should the reviewer get additional information later on they can revisit a listing. If several well known puzzle solvers were to indicate they believe a puzzle required information not generally available to solve the reviewer might ask for more information.

 

Just as puzzle must be solvable there is an implicit guideline that there must be a cache to find. Various reasons can occur that make a reviewer suspect that there is no cache. It must be up to the cache owner to provide some evidence that there is a cache, just as they must be able to show that a puzzle is solvable. The only thing we are debating in this case was whether the cache owner was given the opportunity to demonstrate that there was a cache to be found. I believe he was, but that he may not have been aware of it since the guideline is not explicit and the maintenance guideline is used as a cover for this condition. That resulted is some confusion. The owner did maintenance and verified that his cache was available to be found, but this was not sufficient to prove to the reviewer that there was a cache to be found.

Share this post


Link to post

Look, I also have to point something out about what the CO said that, after looking at the cache page itself, makes me agree with Groundspeak's actions.

 

He says the cache is behind a fake brick in the supports holding up the bridge. Has anyone seen the picture of the bridge on the page? Those arent your everyday, run of the mill bricks. They are massive stone bricks that have to weight ALOT.

 

Questions that run though my mind:

 

How is someone able to remove one of the bricks to replace it with a molded one? What effects, if someone could do such a thing, would that have on bridge safety? Is this man a then vandal?

 

It seems extremely unlikely such a geocache could have been for reals. If it was real, I think there are alot of questions about the actions this cacher took while placing it that if I was a reviewer, would give me cause to archive it. From the information the CO himself has given us, I walk away with the idea there is no cache. I've seen some amazing caches before, but none that could make me think this cache is possible.

Edited by kyle98632

Share this post


Link to post

My goodness some people I believe are overreacting. Cache owners shouldnt start fearing for their caches, as if the very people who spend hours helping give us a good time in making the game run smooth, are out to get us. This is one single case, one that we dont know the whole picture on.

 

BTW, I found this posting very interesting from Keystone. "The cache owner chose to post part of the correspondence exchanged with Groundspeak. You can see those messages beginning here on page two of the thread."

 

Part? What is the CO keeping from us?

Well, you do know that even tho a jury is instructed not to, pleading the 5th when your on the stand defending yourself is awfully incriminating.

Then again GS wont even take the stand let alone enter the courtroom making that a bad analogy, so I ask.

What is Groundspeak keeping from us?

~~~~

 

Something that disturbs me.

Reviewers are cachers, they are also a click, not that I am suggesting that any of them could be dishonorable but...

Why as a CO should I be obligated to reveal to another cacher the details of camouflage on a cache to keep somebody from saying that it doesn't exist?

What if my personal goal is to create a cache so deviously hidden within the guidelines/rules/whatever that it is never found?

Sure, geocaches are there to be found but they are also to be hidden.

Share this post


Link to post

Look, I also have to point something out about what the CO said that, after looking at the cache page itself, makes me agree with Groundspeak's actions.

 

He says the cache is behind a fake brick in the supports holding up the bridge. Has anyone seen the picture of the bridge on the page? Those arent your everyday, run of the mill bricks. They are massive stone bricks that have to weight ALOT.

 

Questions that run though my mind:

 

How is someone able to remove one of the bricks to replace it with a molded one? What effects, if someone could do such a thing, would that have on bridge safety? Is this man a then vandal?

 

It seems extremely unlikely such a geocache could have been for reals. If it was real, I think there are alot of questions about the actions this cacher took while placing it that if I was a reviewer, would give me cause to archive it. From the information the CO himself has given us, I walk away with the idea there is no cache. I've seen some amazing caches before, but none that could make me think this cache is possible.

Bother to read?

Read the bolded parts.

 

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.

Those statements tell you that it was a false brick face.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok first off I wasnt rude to you and I deserve the same respect.

 

Second, I did misread it slightly, but looking into products the CO talks about using brings up even more questions. Poster putty. It is a cheap putty that can be used to hold up light weight items on smooth walls indoors, such a notes, posters, and lightweight plastic picture frames. After a slight bit of research, you can find that one of the ways to get it off a surface you dont want it to be on is to rub an ice cube on it. It gets hard and breaks up. This indoor only product doesnt sounds like something that can hold even a mold of a brick front, and withstand the weather, esp the winters that area of the nation has, and be able to be removed and replaced.

Edited by kyle98632

Share this post


Link to post

Ok first off I wasnt rude to you and I deserve the same respect.

 

Second, I did misread it slightly, but looking into products the CO talks about using brings up even more questions. Poster putty. It is a cheap putty that can be used to hold up light weight items on smooth walls indoors, such a notes, posters, and lightweight plastic picture frames. After a slight bit of research, you can find that one of the ways to get it off a surface you dont want it to be on is to rub an ice cube on it. It gets hard and breaks up. This indoor only product doesnt sounds like something that can hold even a mold of a brick front, and withstand the weather, esp the winters that area of the nation has, and be able to be removed and replaced.

 

Speculation and a few $$ get's you a cup of coffee....and not much more.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok first off I wasnt rude to you and I deserve the same respect.

 

Second, I did misread it slightly, but looking into products the CO talks about using brings up even more questions. Poster putty. It is a cheap putty that can be used to hold up light weight items on smooth walls indoors, such a notes, posters, and lightweight plastic picture frames. After a slight bit of research, you can find that one of the ways to get it off a surface you dont want it to be on is to rub an ice cube on it. It gets hard and breaks up. This indoor only product doesnt sounds like something that can hold even a mold of a brick front, and withstand the weather, esp the winters that area of the nation has, and be able to be removed and replaced.

I wasn't being rude, it appeared to me that you skimmed it but not knowing if you did, I had to ask. I will admit I can be extremely tactless.

On to poster putty, I use it in magical effects, there are many brands and even more formulations.

Most that will stick to a smooth surface will adhere even better to a textured surface. Carpet, oh gads my carpet.

Not knowing the exact position of the false face I can only speculate on how it may have held up during the winter.

It may be that the poster putty gave enough friction that it allowed the brick face to hang even when stiff.

Could have been just fine during the summer but if found during the winter it would have resulted in a NM log.

Could be that it was an entirely unnecessary addition, located on the bottom course.

Then ya got lightweight casting materials. Bondo is light. There are some great sturdy yet light spackling compounds.

 

I wish I had remembered my GPSr and knew about this cache when I went to meet Bruce Campbell, I would have loved to try to get my hands on it. Just to examine the construction.

Edited by Vater_Araignee

Share this post


Link to post
As a northern California cacher and cache placer I have dealings with Nomex quite often. He has disallowed caches of mine and he has archived ongoing popular caches of mine. And - with the exception of one questionable call that I disagreed with - I have found him to be fair in his rulings and attentive to my concerns. He is quick to publish and has always been readily available in matters of geocaching.

 

This current case is curious to be sure and I don't know what to make of it but to call Nomex rogue is certainly overstating the situation.

 

Amen! Let me second this. I have known Nomex for some time and I have always found him to be scrupulously fair and very helpful. Whatever the particulars of this situation are, I cannot believe that he acted improperly.

 

I've also read a lot here on the forums from MissJenn, and I find it difficult to believe that she would uphold the archive unless privy to information we do not have in this thread.

 

Also, please remember that Groundspeak did not call anyone a liar in a public forum. The email exchanges that we have seen were posted by a cacher, not by Groundspeak or any of its employees.

Share this post


Link to post

I have just this morning confirmed coords as correct for a cacher on an apparently nobody cares about it (only 2 watchers) cache of mine that only one team has found and has been dormat for about a year. It is confirmed recently to be there and will probably have a new finder soon. I guess I made the puzzle too hard, or maybe the location is too remote--It's not a lamp post skirt...anyway, nobody has seen fit to archive it, either...

 

lonely cache

Share this post


Link to post

If TPTB accused me of "placing" an non-existent cache, I would have gone and taken a photo and sent it to them to prove it was there. I really don't get why this wasn't done.

 

No, you shouldn't have to prove a cache is there but if someone at the top of the chain was effectively calling me a liar, I'd prove them wrong. Especially if I'd gone to a lot of trouble making the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Um... Bolivia is not in Africa, and the cache would therefore remain on her list of "IMPOSSIBILITIES" until she decides to visit South America

 

<ducks and runs>

Share this post


Link to post

Ok first off I wasnt rude to you and I deserve the same respect.

 

Second, I did misread it slightly, but looking into products the CO talks about using brings up even more questions. Poster putty. It is a cheap putty that can be used to hold up light weight items on smooth walls indoors, such a notes, posters, and lightweight plastic picture frames. After a slight bit of research, you can find that one of the ways to get it off a surface you dont want it to be on is to rub an ice cube on it. It gets hard and breaks up. This indoor only product doesnt sounds like something that can hold even a mold of a brick front, and withstand the weather, esp the winters that area of the nation has, and be able to be removed and replaced.

So now it's okay that GS archived this cache because in theory it might not last through the winter anyway (even though it evidently lasted through two already)? If that's the case, I know a few thousand other caches that need archiving....

Share this post


Link to post

I've watched this thread with some amusement.

 

There's been a lot said, but what do we actually know?

 

All we know is that a cache that has never been found (with 27 DNFs logged) has been archived. All else regarding the whys and wherefores is supposition.

 

Does it exist? The CO claims so, yet has provided no concrete evidence that this is the case. A description of "What I did to hide it" is not evidence.

 

Does it not exist? GS have not put their side of the story.

 

Yes, I think that with the furore that this has created that a comment of some sort from TPTB would be very much in order. Until then all we know is something smells but not what.

Share this post


Link to post
If TPTB accused me of "placing" an non-existent cache, I would have gone and taken a photo and sent it to them to prove it was there. I really don't get why this wasn't done.

 

No, you shouldn't have to prove a cache is there but if someone at the top of the chain was effectively calling me a liar, I'd prove them wrong. Especially if I'd gone to a lot of trouble making the cache.

I completely agree.

 

The more this thread goes on, the more I am convinced that the cache never existed and that the CO withheld a considerable amount of the communication with TPTB.

 

I'm also not swayed by the argument that he hides a bunch of caches so TPTB should let him do whatever he wants.

 

Finally, it's 'clique', not 'click'.

Share this post


Link to post

4 pages and not a peep from anyone in the know from GS....sad. Seems they would be doing themselves a favor by putting this fire out...if they have info that would. Not coming forth and shutting us up seems strange to me, the CO came forward, a MI reviewer posted...why not someone with inside info?

 

Sad, truly sad.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm also not swayed by the argument that he hides a bunch of caches so TPTB should let him do whatever he wants.

No one has said that. What some of us have said is that he hides a bunch of popular caches so he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Share this post


Link to post

4 pages and not a peep from anyone in the know from GS....sad. Seems they would be doing themselves a favor by putting this fire out...if they have info that would. Not coming forth and shutting us up seems strange to me, the CO came forward, a MI reviewer posted...why not someone with inside info?

 

Sad, truly sad.

I agree We need to hear from GS on this one.

Where are you?

Share this post


Link to post
If TPTB accused me of "placing" an non-existent cache, I would have gone and taken a photo and sent it to them to prove it was there. I really don't get why this wasn't done.

 

No, you shouldn't have to prove a cache is there but if someone at the top of the chain was effectively calling me a liar, I'd prove them wrong. Especially if I'd gone to a lot of trouble making the cache.

I completely agree.

 

The more this thread goes on, the more I am convinced that the cache never existed and that the CO withheld a considerable amount of the communication with TPTB.

 

I'm also not swayed by the argument that he hides a bunch of caches so TPTB should let him do whatever he wants.

 

Finally, it's 'clique', not 'click'.

 

After doing all he was supposed to do when placing the cache, answering the calls to maintain and then asking for reinstatement from the highers-up, would I then jump through MORE hoops so some yahoos in the threads would believe me? Not likely. Nor would I try any harder to prove the hide to GS, they made it quite clear they didn't believe him and I doubt ANYTHING the CO does would sway them...and I'd be dogged if I cared much after being called a LIAR.

 

He's come forward, something GS has neglected to do even with the fire that's raging here!

Edited by Rockin Roddy

Share this post


Link to post

I've watched this thread with some amusement.

 

There's been a lot said, but what do we actually know?

 

All we know is that a cache that has never been found (with 27 DNFs logged) has been archived. All else regarding the whys and wherefores is supposition.

 

 

SHELTER III had over 160 DNF's before it was found

 

Groundspeak called the cache owner a liar!!

 

Once on the cache page ,and then again in a letter to the cache owner.

 

Is that acceptable?

 

I would like to see the proof there is no cache, they called him a liar, it is up to them to stand behind their claim.

Share this post


Link to post
first, you pass judgement well for someone with no knowledge of the CO and for being so far away.

 

What is telling to me is the fact that the local reviewers know the cache owner, his reputation and the situation. If they felt that Nomex was out of line it would have been simple for one of them to say "Thanks for your assistance Nomex, but I think you missed the boat on this one". The simple fact that they have not done so speaks volumes and says to me that there is more going on with this cache than the CO is telling or or the other busybodies here are aware of.

Keystone already hinted that this is exactly the case - waaaaaay back on page one of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

This has been a very interesting thread. Iwas not going to respond but I see 2 things that bother me.

 

1. GS has not responded. This seems odd considering all of the action this thread is getting.

 

2. How quickly the CO managed to check on it. This is a high terrain rated cache that the CO says should not be attempted while the river is flooded. However, in the 7 days prior to the CO checking this on Oct 4th there were approximately 2.5 inches of rain in the region, 1 inch of that in the 2 days prior. This seems like it would make the river higher than normal, although maybe not flooded. If this is the case, then the CO got the NM request, happened to be in the area and happened to have any necessaryu equipment to get over this river with him. All in one day? Seems unlikely, although possible.

 

We are just missing so much information on this one that it is hard to know what is true or not. I do know that based on other caches that have never been found and are not archived I would not be worried about other hard caches being archived. This looks like a unique issue with this one cache only.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has a long established practice of not discussing cacher-specific issues, in the public forums or in private emails with other cachers. I am sure most of us can appreciate why they have this policy. To waiver on that policy would open a Pandora's Box and it would be impossible to draw a line for future discussions.

 

At best, GS could post a message to the effect of: “After a complete investigation and review of all the information, we are satisfied that we have taken the correct action.” Posting that message would not satisfy anyone who feels that GS did wrong.

 

IF (and I emphasize the word IF) there is more to this story and IF GS were to reveal information detrimental to the CO, this would just inflame the issue all the more. And it would probably irritate the CO further. Again I emphasize the hypothetical nature of this paragraph, as an additional reason why GS does not respond in this forum.

 

At this point, it would seem the best course of action for the CO is to forget about this cache and move on. He obviously has a strong passion for geocaching and a creative nature. That is an awesome combination and I would encourage him to create new caches. Deciding to never publish another cache only hurts the local community.

Share this post


Link to post
1. GS has not responded. This seems odd considering all of the action this thread is getting.

I don't find it odd. Historically, Groundspeak has never been particularly quick to react to forum threads, and even less so since Jeremy started spending more time assembling the new corporate jet from old Vespa scooter parts.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, he does have time to respond. Piaggio, the firm that makes Vespas, produced a private jet several years ago. All he needs to do is buy a vintage Piaggio jet on ebay and then get back to the business of Groundspeak.

 

1. GS has not responded. This seems odd considering all of the action this thread is getting.

I don't find it odd. Historically, Groundspeak has never been particularly quick to react to forum threads, and even less so since Jeremy started spending more time assembling the new corporate jet from old Vespa scooter parts.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...