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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

I disagree, they are a listing service and can archive a cache when they feel like.

 

To call a paying member a liar, requires an explanation, or cause for the statement.

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.

I remember in some past controversies where either the reviewer or Groundspeak would post the missing e-mail that the CO had neglected to tell us about...and then we all said "Oh, so that's the other side of this story".

 

Perhaps they have wavered (not "waivered") on that.

 

What we seem to be left with here is that the reviewers (by their silence, the local ones also) are saying the CO lied about the existence of the cache. And we don't know why.

 

Probably doesn't affect a lot of us. But as someone observed above, "Something smells. We just don't know what."

Share this post


Link to post
So let's assume that if a reviewer believes there is no cache to find they can archive the listing.

Let's throw in a little ole time religion into the mix: :lol:

 

This game relies almost entirely on faith.

 

The hider needs to believe that if s/he does everything by the book, their cache will be published on geocaching .com. If that faith did not exist, folks likely would not waste their time creating anything harder than a Wally World P&G. I know I certainly wouldn't schlep an ammo can two miles into a swamp if I thought the reviewers would list it, or not, based upon rules or guidelines that are not available to me. The hider must also believe that the vast majority of seekers will treat their cache with respect, doing what they can to ensure its continued survival.

 

The seeker needs to believe that, if they click on an active cache listing, and expend their time, effort and money to go hunt it, there is a reasonable likelihood that there will be something at ground zero for them to find. The seeker must also believe that, when they play the game as intended, their logs will be safe from being deleted. If the whole process of seeking/finding/logging relied upon some unknown, random factor to succeed, I wonder how many people would keep playing?

 

If this incident occurred as Super Fly claims, Groundspeak broke faith.

 

[end cheesy religious reference]

 

We've all seen instances where Groundspeak had to step in and play parent, due to some hider or some seeker playing a version of the game way outside the scope of normality, and most of us, as reasonable adults, accept these occasional interventions from on high as being taken for the overall good of the game.

 

So far, the only evidence we've seen for this Groundspeak intervention was that Super Fly made a challenging hide.

 

Since I've got a 5/5 night hunt Wherigo in the works, requiring an investment of a couple hundred dollars, and several miles of swampy bushwhacking, Groundspeak's actions quite frankly worry me.

 

This is one single case, one that we dont know the whole picture on.

Very true. Excellent point.

A question:

Why don't we know the rest of the story?

Because the other parties involved ain't talking.

Super Fly gave his version.

Nomex has remained silent.

Jenn has remained silent.

The local reviewers have remained silent.

They could shed some light on this issue, but they choose not to.

That's what has some of us concerned.

 

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.

Agreed. Generally, this is accomplished through communication between Groundspeak and the cache owner. Hopefully, Groundspeak doesn't require that we, the players, be psychic, able to read the minds of our reviewers. I'm wondering, if the reviewers believed there was no cache to find, did they communicate this belief to Super Fly? I'm also wondering, if such was their belief, how did they come by it? There were no NMs or SBAs posted to the cache page. Backroom dealings, perhaps? According to Super Fly, the only thing Groundspeak asked was for him to check on his cache, which he did in a timely manner. If Groundspeak has further communication that Super Fly has neglected to tell us about, now would be a great time to reveal this.

Yet all we hear are crickets chirping... :anicute:

 

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

Unless you are a reviewer who can't find a challenging cache.

At that point, speculation gets you the opportunity to have the challenging cache archived. :anibad:

 

Also, please remember that Groundspeak did not call anyone a liar in a public forum.

Are you certain? I seem to recall this log by Nomex that did exactly that:

"As there's been no cache to find for months/years, I'm archiving it"

The owner said it was there. Someone half a country away said "No, it's not".

That sure sounds like Super Fly's being called a liar.

In defense of Nomex and Jenn, I acknowledge that Super Fly could very well be lying about the whole thing.

TPTB could have all kinds of evidence to support calling a long term member a liar.

Now would be a good time to reveal this evidence.

<insert more cricket sounds>

 

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.

Seems like a simple request. One that I, as a cache owner, would likely honor.

Did Groundspeak ever make such a request?

Not sure. Super Fly says "No", and Groundspeak ain't talking.

We do know that TPTB asked Super Fly to check on his cache.

According to him, he did.

Share this post


Link to post

Lest anyone think this is an isolated case, this thread was just last month. As it is here, there was very little information made public there. At least the reviewer involved did pop in, though.

 

I'm not trying to call out reviewers. But I think the customers of this site deserve a better explanation in these cases. How are hiders of difficult caches to be assured it won't happen to them?

Edited by Dinoprophet

Share this post


Link to post
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.

To date, I've never been asked to show absolute proof that a challenging hide of mine is physically in place.

I've never heard TPTB ask for this level of proof for any hider.

According to Super Fly, TPTB didn't ask for proof.

They just asked that he check on it.

He did.

 

Groundspeak called the cache owner a liar!!

Is that acceptable?

If he lied, then yes, I would say their accusation was perfectly acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good points, jhauser42. The cache owner lives around five miles from the cache. October 4th was on a Sunday, so quick maintenance would be possible. As to the height of the river on that date, I have no idea, because I was not in Grand Rapids at the time, but I do know that in the spring it can be six or seven feet higher in many areas than its normal level.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good points, jhauser42. The cache owner lives around five miles from the cache. October 4th was on a Sunday, so quick maintenance would be possible. As to the height of the river on that date, I have no idea, because I was not in Grand Rapids at the time, but I do know that in the spring it can be six or seven feet higher in many areas than its normal level.

 

Exactly! An inch or two wouldn't have made muc difference to SF, I believe he's quite adventurous and used to adverse conditions....I may be mistaken though!

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good points, jhauser42. The cache owner lives around five miles from the cache. October 4th was on a Sunday, so quick maintenance would be possible. As to the height of the river on that date, I have no idea, because I was not in Grand Rapids at the time, but I do know that in the spring it can be six or seven feet higher in many areas than its normal level.

 

Exactly! An inch or two wouldn't have made muc difference to SF, I believe he's quite adventurous and used to adverse conditions....I may be mistaken though!

 

Yes, but an inch or two of rain (4 inches in a week) would not raise the river an inch or two, but substantially more when you consider that all of the feeder streams and runoff would be pouring into it. It would probably raise it quite a bit and cause the current to be faster. That is certainly what happens here to rivers, streams, etc. that are only a couple of inches deep.

 

Again, as I do not KNOW what the conditions were or how the CO accesses this point I do not have any way to make a decision as to what happened. It just strikes me wrong that such a high terrain cache could be checked on that quickly. Is it possible? Of course. However, I do not find it likely.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not trying to call out reviewers. But I think the customers of this site deserve a better explanation in these cases. How are hiders of difficult caches to be assured it won't happen to them?

This whole game is built on trust. If Groundspeak feels reason to distrust something it can ask for proof, confidentially. If no proof is provided then why would that do anything but affirm their distrust?

 

This whole kerfluffle is easy to solve... the CO should prove the cache's existence in confidence to Groundspeak.

 

In the memorable words of President Reagan; Trust, but verify.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good points, jhauser42. The cache owner lives around five miles from the cache. October 4th was on a Sunday, so quick maintenance would be possible. As to the height of the river on that date, I have no idea, because I was not in Grand Rapids at the time, but I do know that in the spring it can be six or seven feet higher in many areas than its normal level.

 

Exactly! An inch or two wouldn't have made muc difference to SF, I believe he's quite adventurous and used to adverse conditions....I may be mistaken though!

 

Yes, but an inch or two of rain (4 inches in a week) would not raise the river an inch or two, but substantially more when you consider that all of the feeder streams and runoff would be pouring into it. It would probably raise it quite a bit and cause the current to be faster. That is certainly what happens here to rivers, streams, etc. that are only a couple of inches deep.

 

Again, as I do not KNOW what the conditions were or how the CO accesses this point I do not have any way to make a decision as to what happened. It just strikes me wrong that such a high terrain cache could be checked on that quickly. Is it possible? Of course. However, I do not find it likely.

It could well be that all he needs to verify it's okay is binoculars.

 

I'm not trying to call out reviewers. But I think the customers of this site deserve a better explanation in these cases. How are hiders of difficult caches to be assured it won't happen to them?

This whole game is built on trust. If Groundspeak feels reason to distrust something it can ask for proof, confidentially. If no proof is provided then why would that do anything but affirm their distrust?

 

This whole kerfluffle is easy to solve... the CO should prove the cache's existence in confidence to Groundspeak.

 

In the memorable words of President Reagan; Trust, but verify.

According to the CO they didn't ask for proof. They just locked, then archived. If they did ask the CO for proof, they could say so here and I'd be willing to believe them. That's fine advice from Reagan, but doesn't it go both ways? I'd like to verify that they had a good reason to do this.

Edited by Dinoprophet

Share this post


Link to post

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

That is a very odd looking cache, indeed! Do you suppose it was an ALR or Liar's type cache that requested finders to post a DNF that included something about Moon Pies? I see that the cache owner was banned... are you saying that was the same person as the cache owner of the cache this thread is about?

Share this post


Link to post

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

That is a very odd looking cache, indeed! Do you suppose it was an ALR or Liar's type cache that requested finders to post a DNF that included something about Moon Pies? I see that the cache owner was banned... are you saying that was the same person as the cache owner of the cache this thread is about?

No, that's an anti-micro sock puppet in PA. I believe the user's main account is also banned, which is a shame because his hides are incredible (and listed elsewhere now).

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.

Post 165 kinda made that argument. Also, it should be noted that 'popular' and 'guidelines compliant' are not always the same thing. From Jenn's email, one could certainly infer that there is some history of problems with this geocacher's hides.
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.
This statement is not logical. Imagine that I take you to a wooded area and tell you that I've hidden a cache. You look and look but come up empty. You then get your 26 closest friends to look for the cache. Can you prove that there is no cache?

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:

 

That was an awesome summary of this whole situation as we know it at this point! The only part that I might disagree with is "The silence of the other people involved speaks volumes." Silence like that is typical of Groundspeak, and of corporations in general, and doesn't neccessarily imply anything. But I sure would like to see the whole story revealed here!

 

 

One other minor point is that Keystone said that Super Fly had posted "part" of his exchanges with Groundspeak. Not sure how much, if anything, to read into that.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's throw in a little ole time religion into the mix: :lol:

 

This game relies almost entirely on faith.

This game does require faith, but not blind faith.
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.
Agreed. Generally, this is accomplished through communication between Groundspeak and the cache owner. Hopefully, Groundspeak doesn't require that we, the players, be psychic, able to read the minds of our reviewers. I'm wondering, if the reviewers believed there was no cache to find, did they communicate this belief to Super Fly? I'm also wondering, if such was their belief, how did they come by it? There were no NMs or SBAs posted to the cache page. Backroom dealings, perhaps? According to Super Fly, the only thing Groundspeak asked was for him to check on his cache, which he did in a timely manner. If Groundspeak has further communication that Super Fly has neglected to tell us about, now would be a great time to reveal this.

Yet all we hear are crickets chirping... :anicute:

The two bolded bits have been mentioned a few times in this thread, but they are kinda bugging me. First, we don't know if any NMs or SBAs were posted to the cache page. We only know that none are currently on the cache page.

 

Second, we don't know that the cache was checked on. We only know that the cache owner claims to have checked on the cache.

In defense of Nomex and Jenn, I acknowledge that Super Fly could very well be lying about the whole thing.

TPTB could have all kinds of evidence to support calling a long term member a liar.

Now would be a good time to reveal this evidence.

<insert more cricket sounds>

Groundspeak has a long history of not discussing these details in the forums. While you seem to be arguing that their silence is evidence of their guilt in this matter, in reality it's nothing of the sort.
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.
Seems like a simple request. One that I, as a cache owner, would likely honor.

Did Groundspeak ever make such a request?

Not sure. Super Fly says "No", and Groundspeak ain't talking.

We do know that TPTB asked Super Fly to check on his cache.

According to him, he did.

According to him, they then archived the cache stating that it didn't exist. In my opinion, this disconnect is evidence that additional communications were made or that additional reseach was undertaken. Still, if the cache owner's timeline is accurate, it seems to me that the next logical step for the cache owner would be to take a picture of the cache and either send it to the reviewer or post it to this thread. Not doing so makes him look guilty of perpetrating a fraud on the caching community.

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.

Post 165 kinda made that argument.

Okay, that post does kind of make the argument. I don't think most defenders of the CO are thinking that way, though.

Also, it should be noted that 'popular' and 'guidelines compliant' are not always the same thing. From Jenn's email, one could certainly infer that there is some history of problems with this geocacher's hides.

If they were popular, though, I doubt they were fraudulent. That would make them decidedly unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post
Groundspeak has a long history of not discussing these details in the forums.

 

I respect that Groundspeak does not discuss details about personal communication with cache owners in public. At this point, the CO has chosen to share at least part of that communication so he has chosen to waive his privacy.

 

But I don't need to know more about whether the cache was or was not there. I don't need to see a picture of it from the CO and it would be difficult for Groundspeak to prove a negative, that the cache was not there. But I would like to know how they made this decision, which could be shared without discussing the details.

 

The CO states that the only communication he had before the cache was archived was the reviewer's note that asked him to check on the cache. He did. It was archived. Upon his appeal, Groundspeak then investigated this decision and determined that he had lied without contacting him further or bringing any specific questions or concerns to his attention. He states that local reviewers live close enough so that he could have shown them the cache and put the matter to rest.

 

Assuming this is accurate, does Groundspeak have a policy of archiving caches without contacting the owner, when the owner reports that the cache has been and is being maintained?

 

Does Groundspeak have a policy of investigating decisions without contacting the owner with their specific questions and concerns?

 

And how can Groundspeak investigate something without doing this?

 

If the account we have been given is not accurate, then Groundspeak simply needs to affirm what their policy is and that it was followed in this case.

 

The situation seems strange to me because I know Nomex to be a conscientious and dedicated reviewer who has been very helpful to local cachers. And Groundspeak generally does a good job at keeping things running smoothly. But it seems that at some point communication broke down between both parties and now we are at least 216 posts into this thread.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good points, jhauser42. The cache owner lives around five miles from the cache. October 4th was on a Sunday, so quick maintenance would be possible. As to the height of the river on that date, I have no idea, because I was not in Grand Rapids at the time, but I do know that in the spring it can be six or seven feet higher in many areas than its normal level.

 

This question is easily answered, regardless of what gear SuperFly keeps in his vehicle.

He obviously walked to the section of the pedestrian bridge and climbed down. Just as others who have logged DNFs on this cache said they did.

 

The picture of the location on the cache page shows it is obviously possible. I assure you, SuperFly is plenty fit and capable of doing this.

 

As for the river depth on that day...

Here is the raw data.

Grand River Gaging Station Data for the Last 60 Days

As is easily seen, the river was at normal levels for that time of the year. The rise in water levels due the rainfall mentioned didn't occur until many days later.

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.

Likely? Maybe. Always? No.

 

Reviewers aren't all-seeing, and caches do get published on school grounds, next to railroad tracks, on mail boxes, etc. Some never get reported. Others do, but it can be months or years after the cache is in place (many cachers don't want to be seen as "tattle-tales"). When that happens, the cache may or may not be immediately archived (depending on if the matter is a legal one), but if the owner can provide evidence that the placement is within the guidelines, it may be reinstated.

 

This is especially true with caches in No Trespassing areas, since is usually impossible for a reviewer to detect that. But Google's working on that. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Lots of righteous indignation to go around here... :lol:

 

As consumers we have options to take our business elsewhere if we disagree with the way a company is operated. To those of you who are so upset at this situation, are you upset enough to cancel your membership in protest?

 

Just curious really...

Share this post


Link to post

Lots of righteous indignation to go around here... :lol:

 

As consumers we have options to take our business elsewhere if we disagree with the way a company is operated. To those of you who are so upset at this situation, are you upset enough to cancel your membership in protest?

 

Just curious really...

 

I don't know, if this situation were in your area and had direct effect on you, how would YOU handle it? Since some of us do place hides (some that get very few visitors) this directly impacts us and we should have some clarification on this so we know what we can expect.

 

Righteous indignation? Many of us are more ALARMED and WORRIED about how this impacts our future hiding plans....but call it what you wish!

Share this post


Link to post
Lots of righteous indignation to go around here... :lol:

As consumers we have options to take our business elsewhere if we disagree with the way a company is operated. To those of you who are so upset at this situation, are you upset enough to cancel your membership in protest?

Just curious really...

As consumers, we have every right in the world to question the company whose services we consume. In my opinion, and I suspect those of many others here, we have an obligation to do so, in some circumstances, and apparently many of of feel that this is one of those circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Lots of righteous indignation to go around here... :lol:

As consumers we have options to take our business elsewhere if we disagree with the way a company is operated. To those of you who are so upset at this situation, are you upset enough to cancel your membership in protest?

Just curious really...

As consumers, we have every right in the world to question the company whose services we consume. In my opinion, and I suspect those of many others here, we have an obligation to do so, in some circumstances, and apparently many of of feel that this is one of those circumstances.

 

And I never said you didn't have a right to question the company, did I?

 

But if answers are not forthcoming, then what?

Share this post


Link to post

Lots of righteous indignation to go around here... :lol:

 

As consumers we have options to take our business elsewhere if we disagree with the way a company is operated. To those of you who are so upset at this situation, are you upset enough to cancel your membership in protest?

 

Just curious really...

No, because I don't know all the facts. But between this and the other thread that I posted above, if there's another incident like this in the near future, it could well leave a bad enough taste that I do. At that point, it would start to look like archiving "too hard" caches is a trend, and I'm not cool with that.

Share this post


Link to post

Lots of righteous indignation to go around here... :anicute:

 

As consumers we have options to take our business elsewhere if we disagree with the way a company is operated. To those of you who are so upset at this situation, are you upset enough to cancel your membership in protest?

 

Just curious really...

 

I don't know, if this situation were in your area and had direct effect on you, how would YOU handle it? Since some of us do place hides (some that get very few visitors) this directly impacts us and we should have some clarification on this so we know what we can expect.

 

Righteous indignation? Many of us are more ALARMED and WORRIED about how this impacts our future hiding plans....but call it what you wish!

 

I'd probably not be posting my anger on a message board - but that's me.

 

BTW: Righteous indignation is typically a reactive emotion to anger over perceived mistreatment, insult, or malice. It is akin to what is called the sense of injustice.

 

And I don't believe that every post so far falls under that definition but certainly some seem to. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Obviously, your "fun" of listing a cache that is not really there at all is not the way the game of geocaching is supposed to go. Any further antics of this sort from you - under ANY username - will result in a long term loss of site privileges.

 

You can parse it anyway you want, but if I got a note from TPTB such as this one, everyone of my caches would be pulled, and none would ever be put out again. :lol:

 

The reviewer calls him a liar and a cheat, there is no other way to read this. Now the reviewer owes us an explanation of why he called him a liar and a cheat. I don't care about the "private company and can do what they want" argument. If they called someone a liar and a cheat, they should be expected to back it up or apologize. :anicute::anibad:

 

One thing is for sure someone is a liar, and it is either the CO or the Reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post

 

This game relies almost entirely on faith.

 

The hider needs to believe that if s/he does everything by the book, their cache will be published on geocaching .com. If that faith did not exist, folks likely would not waste their time creating anything harder than a Wally World P&G. I know I certainly wouldn't schlep an ammo can two miles into a swamp if I thought the reviewers would list it, or not, based upon rules or guidelines that are not available to me. The hider must also believe that the vast majority of seekers will treat their cache with respect, doing what they can to ensure its continued survival.

 

The seeker needs to believe that, if they click on an active cache listing, and expend their time, effort and money to go hunt it, there is a reasonable likelihood that there will be something at ground zero for them to find. The seeker must also believe that, when they play the game as intended, their logs will be safe from being deleted. If the whole process of seeking/finding/logging relied upon some unknown, random factor to succeed, I wonder how many people would keep playing?

 

 

That is very true, but it goes both ways, and since the hider already has a history with GS then perhaps the reviewers beliefs have already been altered by the cache hider and perhaps they do not want to bring it out in the open for the geopaparazzi to discuss it. :lol:

Should cachers pull bricks out of bridge supports to check if they are real? :D If you spent 18 months creating a cache, why would you not spend a minute to upload a picture of it for the reviewer to see?

 

I am rather more upset, disturbed, annoyed, and livid that Head of the hydra #3 was archived even though a picture of the cache with a cacher holding on to it was posted to the page.

:anibad::):DB):D

 

134f3b93-239e-47b3-9b0d-b7ca23292be9.jpg

 

Reviewers aren't all-seeing, and caches do get ...

 

But they do employ remote viewers, just as the scene in the movie The Men that Stare at Goats of a hamster dying is analogous to a cache being archived! :anicute:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


Link to post

One thing is for sure someone is a liar, and it is either the CO or the Reviewer.

 

There is a middle ground. I know Nomex to be honorable. I assume Miss Jenn is as well. The CO seems credible to me. Somewhere, communication did not happen: maybe the reviewer and investigator asked the right questions, maybe they didn't, perhaps mistakes were made, perhaps more could have been done at the time by all concerned, but it may not be an either/or situation. Groundspeak could go a long way to clarify how the decision was made, but again the issue to me at this point is not whether the cache was there, but the policies that Groundspeak uses to decide these things.

 

I try to keep Wayne (Hawaii 501) Mardle's advice in mind. As he was losing the Las Vegas Desert Classic a few years ago to Phil (the Power) Taylor, he looked out at the audience and said, "Its only a game." Actually, he said, "Its only darts." I know that caching can be a business, a cache can be a work of art that takes 18 months to complete, and there are a lot of judgments being made. But Wayne had $20,000 on the line between the difference in checks at the end of the day, it was his livelihood, and it was still only a game.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post
Obviously, your "fun" of listing a cache that is not really there at all is not the way the game of geocaching is supposed to go. Any further antics of this sort from you - under ANY username - will result in a long term loss of site privileges.

 

You can parse it anyway you want, but if I got a note from TPTB such as this one, everyone of my caches would be pulled, and none would ever be put out again. :lol:

 

The reviewer calls him a liar and a cheat, there is no other way to read this. Now the reviewer owes us an explanation of why he called him a liar and a cheat. I don't care about the "private company and can do what they want" argument. If they called someone a liar and a cheat, they should be expected to back it up or apologize. :anicute::anibad:

What if you were a liar/cheat? If someone called you on it would you still pull all your caches? Should TPTB not have the ability to archive caches that they have every reason to believe do not exist?

 

If you were accused of this and it was not true, would you not promptly forward a pic of the cache to TPTB or post it to this thread?

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good points, jhauser42. The cache owner lives around five miles from the cache. October 4th was on a Sunday, so quick maintenance would be possible. As to the height of the river on that date, I have no idea, because I was not in Grand Rapids at the time, but I do know that in the spring it can be six or seven feet higher in many areas than its normal level.

 

Exactly! An inch or two wouldn't have made muc difference to SF, I believe he's quite adventurous and used to adverse conditions....I may be mistaken though!

 

Yes, but an inch or two of rain (4 inches in a week) would not raise the river an inch or two, but substantially more when you consider that all of the feeder streams and runoff would be pouring into it. It would probably raise it quite a bit and cause the current to be faster. That is certainly what happens here to rivers, streams, etc. that are only a couple of inches deep.

 

Again, as I do not KNOW what the conditions were or how the CO accesses this point I do not have any way to make a decision as to what happened. It just strikes me wrong that such a high terrain cache could be checked on that quickly. Is it possible? Of course. However, I do not find it likely.

 

Since I placed the cache and know where it is I can do the five minute drive over to the location and without even getting wet, see the cache from the bank of the river. Since emails come into my iPhone with a tone alerting me to new emails I had the info on the temporary hold only seconds after recieving the email.

 

Also the communications that I posted were the only ones that took place. Soon after posting them I did recieve one other email (which was requested to not be made public) and I am abiding by this request.

 

Believe me-Dont believe me, I dont care any more.

Like me-Dont like me, I dont care any more.

 

The fact is that I will not go through the money or the time to place another cache, since it will be quite some time before I loose this sour taste in my mouth from this incedent. I doubt that if I dont hide any more caches that the community will be effected at all, In a few months they wont even remember who I was.

 

Any other questions???

Share this post


Link to post

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

That is a very odd looking cache, indeed! Do you suppose it was an ALR or Liar's type cache that requested finders to post a DNF that included something about Moon Pies? I see that the cache owner was banned... are you saying that was the same person as the cache owner of the cache this thread is about?

No, that's an anti-micro sock puppet in PA. I believe the user's main account is also banned, which is a shame because his hides are incredible (and listed elsewhere now).

 

Yes, sorry for the confusion. That's the also banned second account of a banned member from SW Pa.; Notice I didn't say Sock Puppet account, because the identity was no secret. By definition, not a sock puppet. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good points, jhauser42. The cache owner lives around five miles from the cache. October 4th was on a Sunday, so quick maintenance would be possible. As to the height of the river on that date, I have no idea, because I was not in Grand Rapids at the time, but I do know that in the spring it can be six or seven feet higher in many areas than its normal level.

 

Exactly! An inch or two wouldn't have made muc difference to SF, I believe he's quite adventurous and used to adverse conditions....I may be mistaken though!

 

Yes, but an inch or two of rain (4 inches in a week) would not raise the river an inch or two, but substantially more when you consider that all of the feeder streams and runoff would be pouring into it. It would probably raise it quite a bit and cause the current to be faster. That is certainly what happens here to rivers, streams, etc. that are only a couple of inches deep.

 

Again, as I do not KNOW what the conditions were or how the CO accesses this point I do not have any way to make a decision as to what happened. It just strikes me wrong that such a high terrain cache could be checked on that quickly. Is it possible? Of course. However, I do not find it likely.

 

Since I placed the cache and know where it is I can do the five minute drive over to the location and without even getting wet, see the cache from the bank of the river. Since emails come into my iPhone with a tone alerting me to new emails I had the info on the temporary hold only seconds after recieving the email.

 

Also the communications that I posted were the only ones that took place. Soon after posting them I did recieve one other email (which was requested to not be made public) and I am abiding by this request.

 

Believe me-Dont believe me, I dont care any more.

Like me-Dont like me, I dont care any more.

 

The fact is that I will not go through the money or the time to place another cache, since it will be quite some time before I loose this sour taste in my mouth from this incedent. I doubt that if I dont hide any more caches that the community will be effected at all, In a few months they wont even remember who I was.

 

Any other questions???

Here's one:

 

Why didn't you simply take a picture of the cache container?

Share this post


Link to post

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

That is a very odd looking cache, indeed! Do you suppose it was an ALR or Liar's type cache that requested finders to post a DNF that included something about Moon Pies? I see that the cache owner was banned... are you saying that was the same person as the cache owner of the cache this thread is about?

No, that's an anti-micro sock puppet in PA. I believe the user's main account is also banned, which is a shame because his hides are incredible (and listed elsewhere now).

 

Yes, sorry for the confusion. That's the also banned second account of a banned member from SW Pa.; Notice I didn't say Sock Puppet account, because the identity was no secret. By definition, not a sock puppet. :anicute:

True dat.

 

I wasn't positive whether AM was the same banned member or if he was one of the other Burning Micro advocates.

Edited by Dinoprophet

Share this post


Link to post
What if you were a liar/cheat? If someone called you on it would you still pull all your caches? Should TPTB not have the ability to archive caches that they have every reason to believe do not exist?

 

From what I see, they do not have a valid reason to believe this cache does not exist. From the posts by those that know the CO I really think the cache is there.

 

If my reviewer called me a liar and a cheat, I would pull my caches. I know I am not!( If I were, I sure wouldn't go to the forums to argue about it when I was called out) Unless they have more reason to think so then we are seeing here, I do not believe the CO is either.

 

That quote from the reviewer is totally out of line. Period. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

So it's now been more than a few hours since the CO gave up his awesome camo job on this well hidden cache that no one was able to find for two years. I don't see where he claims to have removed the cache in any of his posts either here or on the cache page.

 

If I lived in that area, and had posted a few of those DNF's, I'd be running out there to see what I was unable to see before, and might even report back here with some pics to support his request for unarchival and vindication. I'm very surprised that this hasn't taken place yet.

Share this post


Link to post

Superfly:

"Since I placed the cache and know where it is I can do the five minute drive over to the location and without even getting wet, see the cache from the bank of the river. Since emails come into my iPhone with a tone alerting me to new emails I had the info on the temporary hold only seconds after recieving the email.

 

Also the communications that I posted were the only ones that took place. Soon after posting them I did recieve one other email (which was requested to not be made public) and I am abiding by this request.

 

Believe me-Dont believe me, I dont care any more.

Like me-Dont like me, I dont care any more.

 

The fact is that I will not go through the money or the time to place another cache, since it will be quite some time before I loose this sour taste in my mouth from this incedent. I doubt that if I dont hide any more caches that the community will be effected at all, In a few months they wont even remember who I was.

 

Any other questions???"

 

Yes:

 

1) So if this cache sticks out so much that all you have to do is look at it from the bank, why was it never found? If it made to look just like the brick, how can you be sure it was there, and not the real brick itself? I cant imagen something so easy to spot would go unfound.

 

2) How could poster putty work outdoors in the weather? One of the ways to remove poster putty is to put an ice cube on it. It then gets brittle and cracks off. How could it last though the winter?

Edited by kyle98632

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good points, jhauser42. The cache owner lives around five miles from the cache. October 4th was on a Sunday, so quick maintenance would be possible. As to the height of the river on that date, I have no idea, because I was not in Grand Rapids at the time, but I do know that in the spring it can be six or seven feet higher in many areas than its normal level.

 

Exactly! An inch or two wouldn't have made muc difference to SF, I believe he's quite adventurous and used to adverse conditions....I may be mistaken though!

 

Yes, but an inch or two of rain (4 inches in a week) would not raise the river an inch or two, but substantially more when you consider that all of the feeder streams and runoff would be pouring into it. It would probably raise it quite a bit and cause the current to be faster. That is certainly what happens here to rivers, streams, etc. that are only a couple of inches deep.

 

Again, as I do not KNOW what the conditions were or how the CO accesses this point I do not have any way to make a decision as to what happened. It just strikes me wrong that such a high terrain cache could be checked on that quickly. Is it possible? Of course. However, I do not find it likely.

 

Since I placed the cache and know where it is I can do the five minute drive over to the location and without even getting wet, see the cache from the bank of the river. Since emails come into my iPhone with a tone alerting me to new emails I had the info on the temporary hold only seconds after recieving the email.

 

Also the communications that I posted were the only ones that took place. Soon after posting them I did recieve one other email (which was requested to not be made public) and I am abiding by this request.

 

Believe me-Dont believe me, I dont care any more.

Like me-Dont like me, I dont care any more.

 

The fact is that I will not go through the money or the time to place another cache, since it will be quite some time before I loose this sour taste in my mouth from this incedent. I doubt that if I dont hide any more caches that the community will be effected at all, In a few months they wont even remember who I was.

 

Any other questions???

Here's one:

 

Why didn't you simply take a picture of the cache container?

 

I kept tight lipped about this cache for two years. The cache was called Jiendo for a reason it was to be my last great hide and Jiendo means "the end".

After getting an email about the archival of the cache I broke down and revealed the cache to Groundspeak.

Not I am being called a liar by everyone else who insists on a picture --very insulting.

What will be next?? Will everyone need to physicaly see/touch it to believe then that it was not a photoshopped picture.

 

I have also built an ammo box at ten times the scale of a normal ammo box and people drove halfway across the country to see it because they did not believe the picture. Pictures dont mean anything and they certainly wont satisfy everyone.

I am done trying to prove that I actualy had a cache container there. If however Groundspeak had asked for a pic I would have provided one for them.

Share this post


Link to post

1) So if this cache sticks out so much that all you have to do is look at it from the bank, why was it never found? If it made to look just like the brick, how can you be sure it was there, and not the real brick itself? I cant imagen something so easy to spot would go unfound.

 

7e6e8c21-7b36-41da-bc11-40d804e4ad85.jpg

 

If one of those bricks was fake, and you knew which one, don't you think you could tell whether it was in place?

Share this post


Link to post

Superfly:

"Since I placed the cache and know where it is I can do the five minute drive over to the location and without even getting wet, see the cache from the bank of the river. Since emails come into my iPhone with a tone alerting me to new emails I had the info on the temporary hold only seconds after recieving the email.

 

Also the communications that I posted were the only ones that took place. Soon after posting them I did recieve one other email (which was requested to not be made public) and I am abiding by this request.

 

Believe me-Dont believe me, I dont care any more.

Like me-Dont like me, I dont care any more.

 

The fact is that I will not go through the money or the time to place another cache, since it will be quite some time before I loose this sour taste in my mouth from this incedent. I doubt that if I dont hide any more caches that the community will be effected at all, In a few months they wont even remember who I was.

 

Any other questions???"

 

 

Yes:

 

1) So if this cache sticks out so much that all you have to do is look at it from the bank, why was it never found? If it made to look just like the brick, how can you be sure it was there, and not the real brick itself? I cant imagen something so easy to spot would go unfound.

 

2) How could poster putty work outdoors in the weather? One of the ways to remove poster putty is to put an ice cube on it. It then gets brittle and cracks off. How could it last though the winter?

 

1) The cache only stuck out about 1/4 inch. Let me ask you could you spot your child in a crowd?? How about your wife or husband?? After taking so long to build this cache and having to place it on an exact brick that the mold was taken from it is not hard for me to spot my own work from the short distance away that the bank is.

 

2) Do your research there are many types of "poster putty" available. You dont need to just referance the cheep ones sold at standard office supply stores. Do you think after all that work that I would rely on something that might let loose and destroy all of my hard work???

Share this post


Link to post
Any other questions???"

 

Would you give Groundspeak permission to post all the email exchanges?

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.

 

Thank you for this post.

 

I don't understand why this isn't obvious to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Any other questions???"

 

Would you give Groundspeak permission to post all the email exchanges?

 

Not a problem since I did it already there are no more emails to post so I say bring it on.

Share this post


Link to post

Jiendo was pulled out 2 am saturday 11/7/09

That's a shame, because according to this thread and the cache logs there were dozens who would have rallied behind you to point out the errors in the way that this situation was handled. All they needed was a chance to see your masterpiece in place and take some pics, and maybe even sign the log! :lol:

 

Now all we have is he said she said.

Share this post


Link to post
Any other questions???"

 

Yes. And I am not being faceitous. If you are truely done with the cache, you please post pictures to the Cool Cache Containers thread?

 

 

I once had a cache where the first stage was a casting that I had made of the bronze load limit plaque on a foot bridge. I have some idea of what you went through.

Share this post


Link to post

Jiendo was pulled out 2 am saturday 11/7/09

That's a shame, because according to this thread and the cache logs there were dozens who would have rallied behind you to point out the errors in the way that this situation was handled. All they needed was a chance to see your masterpiece in place and take some pics, and maybe even sign the log! :lol:

 

Now all we have is he said she said.

 

Maybe its hard for anyone to understand- but after being called a liar I was ready to go pull all of my caches out that night not just the one in question. Also if you read the nomax note it says archive after picking up any geo litter. I did the reverse I picked up my cache after they archived it. I dont want to be acused of littering on top of lying.

Share this post


Link to post

Jiendo was pulled out 2 am saturday 11/7/09

That's a shame, because according to this thread and the cache logs there were dozens who would have rallied behind you to point out the errors in the way that this situation was handled. All they needed was a chance to see your masterpiece in place and take some pics, and maybe even sign the log! :lol:

 

Now all we have is he said she said.

While I would have liked to see it in place, I'm about 200 miles from the cache and wouldn't likely have ever gotten to it.

Share this post


Link to post

...I disagree, they are a listing service and can archive a cache when they feel like....

 

They can archive the listing.

 

Ignoring that nit I like the name "Rogue Reviewer" and think a reviewer should use it in the future when called.

Share this post


Link to post

I truly was on the fence before, but now I am pretty much convinced that the cache never existed.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...