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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

I think this thread would explode if SF posted a picture of the cache container that the across the country reviewer said hasn't been there for years.

 

I want to believe the reviewers but so far I am still believing that the reviewer was completely in the wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
GS being consistent with past practice and not engaging in this thread.

Since Groundspeak has, on several occasions, deflated a ranting, raving cacher by telling "the rest of the story", I hardly see their continuing silence as being consistent with past behavior. Assuming that Super Fly was lying, and assuming that Nomex was able to develop proof of this, all this debate could be shut down with a single well worded paragraph. Heck, these types of responses from Groundspeak rank right up there with my all time favorite threads! :angry: Some disgruntled cacher comes in slinging accusations and preaching the evils of the Lily Pad, much to our dismay, then gets shut down soundly by a presentation of the facts.

I keep waiting for Groundspeak to do this for this debate...

Fingers crossed! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Claim #6

 

SF has responded in this thread. It is unknown to me if he has responded in a forthright manner.

You are correct. I misspoke. Allow me to edit? :)

6 ) In fact, of all the people involved, Super Fly is the only one who has explained himself, truthful or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
No posting of the container to prove the validity of the claims.

No picture? Seriously? This is what leads to your doubt?

Has Groundspeak asked for a picture?

Has Nomex, or any other reviewer asked for a picture?

Not according to Super Fly.

If anyone up the food chain has asked, they could shut this thread down by telling us this.

<insert more cricket sounds>

 

Have you ever been asked for photographic evidence that one of your caches was present?

Every time I've submitted a cache for review, my reviewers have been willing to take my word for its existence.

Has this changed?

The concept of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" comes to mind... :)

 

I would be mostly OK with the way this incident has played out, except for one small detail:

A reviewer, acting as a representative of Groundspeak, called a member a liar in a very public way.

TPTB brought that out in the open for the rest of the community to see.

It is quite possible that Super Fly is a liar, and the reviewer acted justly in naming him as such.

However, since TPTB called him out, in public, it's up to them to demonstrate the validity of their claims.

It's not up to Super Fly to prove he was innocent.

Can you recall any time when GS has been publicly involved in a thread such as this? I believe there is more going on behind the scenes than we see. I also believe we have little or no right to expect to have any of that information shared in a public forum. It is between a private company and a user.

 

The lack of response from the GS side is entirely consistent with past procedure. Why should we expect anything else?

 

This is not a court of law and GS really has no need to defend the action being discussed here.

 

If SF is telling the truth it should be a simple matter for him to present photographic evidence since he has already removed the container and disclosed the method of disguise. If I were called out by GS or anyone in these forums as being a liar I would immediately take all necessary steps to prove the accusers wrong. Pretty simple. My personal integrity and reputation are far more important than any cache.

 

In this case a picture could be worth more than 350 posts.

Share this post


Link to post
GS being consistent with past practice and not engaging in this thread.

Since Groundspeak has, on several occasions, deflated a ranting, raving cacher by telling "the rest of the story", I hardly see their continuing silence as being consistent with past behavior. Assuming that Super Fly was lying, and assuming that Nomex was able to develop proof of this, all this debate could be shut down with a single well worded paragraph. Heck, these types of responses from Groundspeak rank right up there with my all time favorite threads! :angry: Some disgruntled cacher comes in slinging accusations and preaching the evils of the Lily Pad, much to our dismay, then gets shut down soundly by a presentation of the facts.

I keep waiting for Groundspeak to do this for this debate...

Fingers crossed! :)

I try to keep up but I must admit I do not recall the responses from GS. I would appreciate links so I can refresh my memory.

 

I must admit these threads ARE highly entertaining and this has been no exception.

 

I do look forward to reading about "the rest of the story".

 

edit to remove a random "p"

Edited by WRASTRO

Share this post


Link to post
GS being consistent with past practice and not engaging in this thread.

Since Groundspeak has, on several occasions, deflated a ranting, raving cacher by telling "the rest of the story", I hardly see their continuing silence as being consistent with past behavior. Assuming that Super Fly was lying, and assuming that Nomex was able to develop proof of this, all this debate could be shut down with a single well worded paragraph. Heck, these types of responses from Groundspeak rank right up there with my all time favorite threads! :angry: Some disgruntled cacher comes in slinging accusations and preaching the evils of the Lily Pad, much to our dismay, then gets shut down soundly by a presentation of the facts.

I keep waiting for Groundspeak to do this for this debate...

Fingers crossed! :)

I try to keep up but I must admit I do not recall the responses from GS. I would appreciate links so I can refresh my memory.

 

I must admit these threads ARE highly entertaining and this has been no exception.

 

I do look forward to reading about "the rest of the story".

 

edit to remove a random "p"

 

The ALR thread they posted fairly early and stated their position.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post

One thing about threads like this, they always bring out those who believe Groundspeak can do no wrong. If GS says that SF was lying about the cache then SF must be a liar. And we have seen attacks made on SF's description of the cache (poster putty won't last through a Michigan winter, how he could check the cache when the Grand River was high after rains, etc.) and searches of the forums for threads on his previous run ins with local reviewers or cachers. We don't know what evidence Groundspeak may or may not have used to decide there was no cache to find. But Groundspeak should answer this themselves because by being silent it looks like they are leaving it to their sycophants to defend them once again. I wish I had a cadre of people so loyal to me that I could keep silent every time I got accused of making a error because I knew they would invent some excuse on my behalf.

 

On a more general topic. We had a cache near me a few weeks ago. The hider set it up so there would be doubts about whether the cache existed or not. The date place was 1994, the cache has a six character GC number which the cache owner must have been sitting on for a while, there was nothing in the description, no hint, and the size was not chosen. From what I was told, finders were asked to give away nothing in their logs and to backdate their logs to add to the mystery. And when the cache was first place it had a found it log from an apparent sock puppet account. I went to look for the cache since I live very close and DNF'd. Others also looked that day and I got emails to tell me there was in fact a cache. Perhaps there was a feeling that a DNF would make it look like there really wasn't a cache and get this one archived. I went back a few days later and DNF again. Now, I got cachers giving me spoiler hints where to look. I went back and looked a third time and still didn't find it. I was pretty convinced from other caches hidden in this area that the cache wasn't going survive long anyhow. It was in a flood control basin and would have been underwater the first significant rain. In fact that is why I DNF'd the first two time, because I didn't look for a cache on the ground and spent my time looking for something hanging high in a tree where it might have stood a chance of lasting. After my third DNF I put the cache on my ignore list. A few days later the CO archived the cache. He says he got too many complaints from people. I not sure what the deal was but I suspect that someone was contacting a reviewer complaining that perhaps there wasn't a cache there. Rather than dealing with a having to prove there was a cache or having to change the cache page to make it less mysterious to people who are used to finding LPCs, the owner archived the cache. There are too many people now who complain about any cache that is a little mysterious or creative. The guidelines too have changed providing ways for the people who have a rigid concept of what a cache should be to bring complaints to reviewers and get anything that is different either changed to their liking or archived.

Share this post


Link to post
GS being consistent with past practice and not engaging in this thread.

Since Groundspeak has, on several occasions, deflated a ranting, raving cacher by telling "the rest of the story", I hardly see their continuing silence as being consistent with past behavior. Assuming that Super Fly was lying, and assuming that Nomex was able to develop proof of this, all this debate could be shut down with a single well worded paragraph. Heck, these types of responses from Groundspeak rank right up there with my all time favorite threads! :angry: Some disgruntled cacher comes in slinging accusations and preaching the evils of the Lily Pad, much to our dismay, then gets shut down soundly by a presentation of the facts.

I keep waiting for Groundspeak to do this for this debate...

Fingers crossed! :)

I try to keep up but I must admit I do not recall the responses from GS. I would appreciate links so I can refresh my memory.

 

I must admit these threads ARE highly entertaining and this has been no exception.

 

I do look forward to reading about "the rest of the story".

 

edit to remove a random "p"

 

The ALR thread they posted fairly early and stated their position.

 

Jim

If I recall correctly the ALR thread was rather generic. This thread is VERY specific. I can't recall GS becoming involved in a very specific thread such as this.

 

And just to respond to toz. I am certainly not claiming that I do not believe GS can do no wrong (just in case the comment was directed at me in any way). I try to evaluate the evidence offered and form my opinion from there. YMMV

Share this post


Link to post
This is not a court of law and GS really has no need to defend the action being discussed here.

While it's true that this forum is not a court of law, it does serve as a sounding board for a small portion of its membership. I'm assuming that, when the local reviewers asked for this to be addressed in these forums, our opinions were what they wanted. Here's mine:

 

Groundspeak, and its agents had several possibly ways to resolve this.

For reasons I can't comprehend, they opted to take the low road, deliberately and directly insulting a member who, from the posted opinions of the local cachers who have chimed in, has mostly behaved honorably throughout his caching career. Even the one local who said he didn't like Super Fly's hides, stood up for his reputation.

 

Groundspeak chose to call him a liar.

 

Groundspeak chose to do so publicly.

 

Having taken the low road, I think they should explain their actions.

 

It is entirely possible that Super Fly is a liar, and that these accusations were completely justified.

 

But since Groundspeak chose to make it public, I feel they do us a disservice by failing to offer an explanation for what appears to be heavy handed bullying.

 

I liken it to an elementary school teacher walking into a classroom, pointing out a student, yelling, "Johnny, You Are A Liar!", then walking out. Johnny may be a liar, but by accusing him in front of his peers, the teacher owes the class an explanation.

 

Maybe I just see calling someone a liar, in public, as too big a deal? :)

Do I need to grow thicker hide? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
This is not a court of law and GS really has no need to defend the action being discussed here.

While it's true that this forum is not a court of law, it does serve as a sounding board for a small portion of its membership. I'm assuming that, when the local reviewers asked for this to be addressed in these forums, our opinions were what they wanted. Here's mine:

 

Groundspeak, and its agents had several possibly ways to resolve this.

For reasons I can't comprehend, they opted to take the low road, deliberately and directly insulting a member who, from the posted opinions of the local cachers who have chimed in, has mostly behaved honorably throughout his caching career. Even the one local who said he didn't like Super Fly's hides, stood up for his reputation.

 

Groundspeak chose to call him a liar.

 

Groundspeak chose to do so publicly.

 

Having taken the low road, I think they should explain their actions.

 

It is entirely possible that Super Fly is a liar, and that these accusations were completely justified.

 

But since Groundspeak chose to make it public, I feel they do us a disservice by failing to offer an explanation for what appears to be heavy handed bullying.

 

I liken it to an elementary school teacher walking into a classroom, pointing out a student, yelling, "Johnny, You Are A Liar!", then walking out. Johnny may be a liar, but by accusing him in front of his peers, the teacher owes the class an explanation.

 

Maybe I just see calling someone a liar, in public, as too big a deal? :)

Do I need to grow thicker hide? :angry:

 

Great analogy in many ways.

 

I agree with what you are saying.

Share this post


Link to post

Bittsen understands.

 

One good detailed picture(s) and it'd all be over. I'm willing to bet some people would cancel their membership over it.

 

I always try to put myself in "others" people shoes.

 

If GS wronged me, I'd be singing to high heaven, posting pictures, emailing other cachers, re-appealing, posting on GS forums, posting on other geosites, blogging about it, etc. If GS did that to you wouldn't you want people to know the REAL truth so they can form their own opinons of the company?

 

However, the picture(s) must be posted soon. Time will tell . . . but if no nice detailed pictures show up . . .

 

Also, I haven't read every single post but I've read a bunch of them. What I don't understand, is the day it was archived why didn't the original hider just resubmit it with a different name, slightly different description and the same coordinates? Seemed like it would save a bunch of drama. Or better yet, just resubmit the whole thing exactly as you had it before but include a picture of the container and email to Tiki and Rusty (reviewers). What are they gonna do, deny it?

Edited by Morning Dew

Share this post


Link to post

Bittsen understands.

 

One good detailed picture(s) and it'd all be over. I'm willing to bet some people would cancel their membership over it.

 

I always try to put myself in "others" people shoes.

 

If GS wronged me, I'd be singing to high heaven, posting pictures, emailing other cachers, re-appealing, posting on GS forums, posting on other geosites, blogging about it, etc. If GS did that to you wouldn't you want people to know the REAL truth so they can form their own opinons of the company?

 

However, the picture(s) must be posted soon. Time will tell . . . but if no nice detailed pictures show up . . .

 

Also, I haven't read every single post but I've read a buch of them. What I don't understand, is the day it was archived why didn't the original hider just resubmit it with a different name, slightly different description and the same coordinates? Seemed like it would save a bunch of drama.

Morning Dew I agree with your post. I don't understand how your post ties in with agreeing with Bittsen and CR though.

 

Call me crazy. Post the evidence and be done with it.

Share this post


Link to post

Morning Dew I agree with your post. I don't understand how your post ties in with agreeing with Bittsen and CR though.

 

Call me crazy. Post the evidence and be done with it.

 

I think Morning Dew was basing the reply on post 351.

 

I will add that I think the type of hide that is in question isn't the kind of hide I would like to be hunting. I believe the CO takes sinister enjoyment knowing his cache is stumping people and, honestly, I don't like that style of geocaching. BUT, it's allowed so I still think there needs some resolution, and soon.

Share this post


Link to post
If GS did that to you wouldn't you want people to know the REAL truth so they can form their own opinions of the company?

No. Maybe I'm the oddball here, but if I were the one publicly called a liar by a company I support financially, I wouldn't have even offered what explanations Super Fly produced. For me, it would be a null issue, as all my caches would be archived, and some other cache listing service would be getting my dime. I really have to give props to Super Fly for being so patient.

 

The stickler in this, (for me at least), is that, (assuming Super Fly is being truthful), at no point in Groundspeak's investigation, was proof requested. If they needed proof, all they had to do was ask, as part of their investigation. If I worked at the Lily Pad, and I was asked to investigate something similar, and my initial findings led me to believe the hider may be practicing deception, I would explain my concerns to the CO, and ask that he send me some sort of proof that the cache exists. By doing so, I would be taking the moral high ground. Once I received this proof, I would e-mail whoever it was that brought these concerns to my door, explaining to them that my investigation revealed the cache is legitimate. If the CO refused to provide such proof, I would archive the listing, and send him a private e-mail explaining why I did what I did.

 

At no point would I resort to public insults.

 

At this stage, most of us in here don't know the facts. All we have is the word of the cache owner. Super Fly could be the biggest prevaricator in geocaching history, and we would not be able to prove or disprove his character. If that's all there was to this story, I would've left this thread long ago. However, as you know, there is a lot more going on here. Specifically, Groundspeak decided it would be in their best interest to publicly call Super Fly a liar. Now the ball is in their court. The burden of proof falls squarely on Groundspeak's shoulders, not Super Fly's.

Share this post


Link to post

Since this all began I have done everything asked of me, still the cache was archived.

 

I remember when I placed GC109C2 I had one of the reviewers e-mail me and say that cachers have been complaining that my puzzles were to complicated and some they beleived to be unsolvable and until I could tell him the solution to this one he would have to say no to publishing it. I called him on the phone within minutes of getting the email and in less than a minute he was laughing at how easy the puzzle was. The cache was then published only moments later.

 

When asked by a reviewer or Groundspeak for info I have always made it my best effort to promptly respond.

 

However you all that request a picture have no authority to ask for a picture, by asking for a picture you have already made your assumption of guilt.

 

If I ever decide to try and rehide this cache the only thing keeping any resemblance of a secret is the actual look of the cache thus I will not post a picture.

 

Right now this whole discussion is over for me. Groundspeak and I have had our differances of opinion in the past and I believe that we have worked past them - this too will pass.

 

If I had relisted the cache with the same coordinates under a different name the reviewers in this area would have refused to publish it knowing that Groundspeak had just archived it. Once again I was mad at the decision to archive, what I think was the ultimate hide of mine, but in the end it doesnt matter what I think.

 

The only thing that matters is that I can go out and find caches freely and without the trouble of this cache anymore.

 

Thanks everyone who has supported me in this forum. To those of you who do not believe me - well thats not my problem and since I dont come here often because of the continued drama over everything I'll probably never run into any of your opinions again.

 

Peace to you all - and Cache on my friends.

Share this post


Link to post

Editing a previous post because there is no need to say anything else in light of the CO's last statement. Besides I was just repeating myself. In any event, the issue of whether a cache was actually placed has long since passed. The only thing that needs resolution is for Groundspeak to clarify its policies and procedures but that does not seem likely to happen.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post

TDE / Superfly -

 

Thanks for answering my question. I appreciate it.

 

Bittsen / Wrastro

 

Yes, I was referring to post #351 sorry for the confusion.

 

However, I do COMPLETELY agree with CR. Maybe some are taking my comments in the wrong way. GS (or a rep for them) publicly accused a paying member of being a liar (it's still there right on the cache page for all to see). To me this is low and tasteless. EVEN if you have undisputable proof that a person is lieing, you simply just archive the cache and move on, saying nothing. You don't put out in the public that he is a liar. Also, I would expect them to cancel the membership and refund a prorated amount as well, if the member was lieing to GS and they knew it for a fact. I'm assumming this is a violation of the TOA. I'm not reading it and you can't make me :).

 

I just wanted a picture so I can form a solid opinion of GS. Thanks to "no pic" the only ill feelings I have is poor judgement by a reviewer. And again, that's only my opinion, certainly not a fact. And you don't "have" to post a pic. You could email it to me. Not that you care, but you'd have a new ally in MI and with your permission I would tell anyone and everyone that he sent me the proof and I'm satisfied.

 

Finally, I don't see how GS could deny your cache if you just re-submitted, especially with a picture of the container and you are standing next to it with the container flipped over. Again, you could find this out tomorrow if you don't believe me.....Tiki and/or Rusty would have an answer for you by the end of the day. They are amazingly quick reviewers.

Edited by Morning Dew

Share this post


Link to post

by asking for a picture you have already made your assumption of guilt.

 

 

Not me, I'm just nosey and want to see how it was done and how it looked!

Share this post


Link to post

by asking for a picture you have already made your assumption of guilt.

 

 

Not me, I'm just nosey and want to see how it was done and how it looked!

Exactly. I've been a defender of TDE/SF throughout this thread, but I'd still like to see it.

Share this post


Link to post

by asking for a picture you have already made your assumption of guilt.

 

 

Not me, I'm just nosey and want to see how it was done and how it looked!

Exactly. I've been a defender of TDE/SF throughout this thread, but I'd still like to see it.

 

It sounds as if TDE may plan to place a similar or even the same cache again in the future, showing the container would be a huge spoiler. I am glad TDE has decided to move on and get over it...a bigger man than I!!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm assumming this is a violation of the TOA. I'm not reading it and you can't make me :angry:.

You have 6 caches published but state that you haven't and won't read the TOA... yet to get each cache published you had to check a box stating that you had read, understand and will abide by it. So are you saying that 6 times you have lied to your Reviewer to get a cache published? :)

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a theory no one has mentioned. It could be possible ground speak has been silent because it wants to protect the identity of the persons or person that may have come forward with proof the this cache is a fraud. They may not want the CO to know who this is. Possible???? :)

Edited by rustynails.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a theory no one has mentioned. It could be possible ground speak has been silent because it wants to protect the identity of the persons or person that may have come forward with proof the this cache is a fraud. They may not want the CO to know who this is. Possible???? :)

 

I'm pretty sure they could comment on this without giving any kind of "private" info out!

Share this post


Link to post
<insert more cricket sounds>

You don't suppose TPTB have been in damage control meetings, do you? :)

Share this post


Link to post

I think I have the perfect solution to help solve this once and for all!

 

I am a very well known/established cacher.

 

I also live in the same neighborhood as Team Desert Eagle (previously known as Superfly). The

cache in question is only a few miles from our homes.

 

I volunteer to re-hide Team Desert Eagle's cache and am willing to list it

under my account. I will, of course, give TDE full credit for the

creativity of the hide in my cache description. If TDE is willing to

allow me to rehide his container, this will totally prove that GC was in

the wrong to archive this cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess to each their own on how to handle certain situations. Me? I stopped listing my caches here. Archived a few. A few are still in the wild. Why? Because of a way one reviewer spoke to my wife. I've just gotten tired of the heavy handedness of some of the reviewers that represent Groundspeak.

 

Groundspeak probably couldn't care less if they loose a few cachers, especially "trouble makers." It would lighten their work load. It seems short-lived urban micro P&Gs are the best for them. Who knew what this hobby would turn into when looking into the crystal ball a few years ago.

 

Like I said, to each their own. Me? If I were in SF's position, I probably would have posted the solution, showing my work on how you get it. I would have posted detailed pictures of the cache and its location. Then I would have posted something to the effect, "Apparently if the cache is too hard, in the eyes of some it doesn't exist and doesn't deserve to be listed on geocaching.com. You get to be called a liar and have your reputation called into question. All the while a real cache sits waiting to be found." Yeah, it might get me banned by embarrassing a reviewer, but maybe the pedestal needs to be kicked out from under a few.

 

BTW, even though you might get a demand for an apology if you question a reviewer's integrity, don't expect the return when it goes the other way.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Groundspeak chose to do so publicly.

 

Having taken the low road, I think they should explain their actions.

 

I liken it to an elementary school teacher walking into a classroom, pointing out a student, yelling, "Johnny, You Are A Liar!", then walking out. Johnny may be a liar, but by accusing him in front of his peers, the teacher owes the class an explanation.

 

Maybe I just see calling someone a liar, in public, as too big a deal? :)

Do I need to grow thicker hide? :D

 

Clan, I know I am new here and so should shut up, and don't take this the wrong way, but dude get over it. We know that you feel GS called him a liar in public. However time to move past that point and get to the point of if there really is/was a cache.

 

As to your analogy of the school teacher I think it is more like this. "Johnny, you said you did your homework but I think you didn't so you are getting an F." Well then Johnny reaches into his folder and pulls out the homework that he did and proves the teacher wrong. Johnny does not say, the next day, well you hurt my feelings so I burned the homework last night at 2 am.

 

To the CO, man you had your chance to rub Gs's nose in it. You should have take a video of you walking up to the cache and pulling it off the brick. Then post it on you tube for all to see. However by saying that you removed the cache at 2 am? Well that just does not sound right man.

Share this post


Link to post
Groundspeak probably couldn't care less if they loose a few cachers, especially "trouble makers." It would lighten their work load.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

Most businesses operate that way, in fact. The successful ones do, anyway.

 

It seems short-lived urban micro P&Gs are the best for them. Who knew what this hobby would turn into when looking into the crystal ball a few years ago.

Groundspeak is now specifically torpedoing challenging caches because they prefer to list only P&G micros? Man, that's a stretch. Sorry, but I just don’t see how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

If I were in SF's position, I probably would have posted the solution, showing my work on how you get it. I would have posted detailed pictures of the cache and its location.

Yes. Convincing pictures. Seems like it would be a very easy thing to do.

 

The fact that he hasn’t done so is very telling.

 

I'm with ScottKaren on this one. SuperFly could have easily proven his case, but so far has chosen not to. Why?

Share this post


Link to post

C'mon guys....this isn't even yet the most-posted to thread started this month. We've got a long ways to go to break into the TopTen of all time.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Groundspeak chose to do so publicly.

 

Having taken the low road, I think they should explain their actions.

 

I liken it to an elementary school teacher walking into a classroom, pointing out a student, yelling, "Johnny, You Are A Liar!", then walking out. Johnny may be a liar, but by accusing him in front of his peers, the teacher owes the class an explanation.

 

Maybe I just see calling someone a liar, in public, as too big a deal? :)

Do I need to grow thicker hide? :D

 

Clan, I know I am new here and so should shut up, and don't take this the wrong way, but dude get over it. We know that you feel GS called him a liar in public. However time to move past that point and get to the point of if there really is/was a cache.

 

As to your analogy of the school teacher I think it is more like this. "Johnny, you said you did your homework but I think you didn't so you are getting an F." Well then Johnny reaches into his folder and pulls out the homework that he did and proves the teacher wrong. Johnny does not say, the next day, well you hurt my feelings so I burned the homework last night at 2 am.

 

To the CO, man you had your chance to rub Gs's nose in it. You should have take a video of you walking up to the cache and pulling it off the brick. Then post it on you tube for all to see. However by saying that you removed the cache at 2 am? Well that just does not sound right man.

 

Get over the idea that GS can call any of us liars at any time and not be held accountable...OK, sure. Your analogy is quite a ways off, wouldn't the homework need turned in? Wouldn't the student still get an "F" if not turned in on time? And why wouldn't the kid turn it in if done? Surely not to keep secret the kids intelligence (or in the CO's case, creativity).

 

Maybe, if it bothers you to see Clan or anyone else stand up and ask for accountability, maybe you shouldn't be reading this thread instead of suggesting we stop?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm assumming this is a violation of the TOA. I'm not reading it and you can't make me :D.

You have 6 caches published but state that you haven't and won't read the TOA... yet to get each cache published you had to check a box stating that you had read, understand and will abide by it. So are you saying that 6 times you have lied to your Reviewer to get a cache published? :)

I'm not sure what a TOA is. The site has a TOU and a Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines. When you submit a hide you check off that you have read both. There is nothing that explicit states you can't lie about a cache on a cache page. A lot of liars caches and some caches with misdirection on the page to add to the difficulty would be in violation if you couldn't lie. The TOU does say that you agree not to interfere with the proper working of the site or any activities conducted on the site. While this probably means not hacking the Gecoaching.com site or attempting a DNS attack, it could be interpreted as interfering with the use of the site to find geocaches to look for. If there were a lot of bogus caches listed people would stop looking using Geocaching.com to look for cache because they would not know if the cache was real or not. The Guidelines indicate you are responsible for the quality control of you cache page and that for all physical caches there must be a logbook and container. I suppose this means that if there is no container or log book (i.e. nothing to find) the cache does not meet the requirements to be listed and can be archived.

 

The guidelines regarding containers are not clear. The only indication that you need a container is in the definition of a traditional cache

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

The section on guidelines that apply to all cache types says

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

There is another thread going on over an issue when where a reviewer asked the owner to verify there was a log in the cache before he would publish it. So I won't go into details other than to say the guidelines need some work in this area.

 

It does seem that guidelines do state you need a container and log. This is hard to find and the container part is unclear. I take back what I said about it being unwritten; now I feel that only a clarification of the guidelines is needed.

 

If there is no cache the reviewer should archive the listing. The issue is what proof must a cache owner provide and should the reviewer who is investigating the cache provide an explicit request for such proof before archiving the cache. Secondarily, there is also the issue of trust between the reviewer and the cache owner. Most of the time reviewers take the cache owner's word that the cache is OK. At what point can reviewers begin to doubt a cache owner? At what point is it appropriate for the reviewer to reveal this doubt publicly by posting it on the cache page?

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post
Groundspeak probably couldn't care less if they loose a few cachers, especially "trouble makers." It would lighten their work load.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

Most businesses operate that way, in fact. The successful ones do, anyway.

 

It seems short-lived urban micro P&Gs are the best for them. Who knew what this hobby would turn into when looking into the crystal ball a few years ago.

Groundspeak is now specifically torpedoing challenging caches because they prefer to list only P&G micros? Man, that's a stretch. Sorry, but I just don’t see how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

If I were in SF's position, I probably would have posted the solution, showing my work on how you get it. I would have posted detailed pictures of the cache and its location.

Yes. Convincing pictures. Seems like it would be a very easy thing to do.

 

The fact that he hasn’t done so is very telling.

 

I'm with ScottKaren on this one. SuperFly could have easily proven his case, but so far has chosen not to. Why?

 

I believe he has posted his reasons a few times, reading the thread could shed some light on this for you. :)

Share this post


Link to post

 

Groundspeak chose to do so publicly.

 

Having taken the low road, I think they should explain their actions.

 

I liken it to an elementary school teacher walking into a classroom, pointing out a student, yelling, "Johnny, You Are A Liar!", then walking out. Johnny may be a liar, but by accusing him in front of his peers, the teacher owes the class an explanation.

 

Maybe I just see calling someone a liar, in public, as too big a deal? :)

Do I need to grow thicker hide? :D

 

Clan, I know I am new here and so should shut up, and don't take this the wrong way, but dude get over it. We know that you feel GS called him a liar in public. However time to move past that point and get to the point of if there really is/was a cache.

 

As to your analogy of the school teacher I think it is more like this. "Johnny, you said you did your homework but I think you didn't so you are getting an F." Well then Johnny reaches into his folder and pulls out the homework that he did and proves the teacher wrong. Johnny does not say, the next day, well you hurt my feelings so I burned the homework last night at 2 am.

 

To the CO, man you had your chance to rub Gs's nose in it. You should have take a video of you walking up to the cache and pulling it off the brick. Then post it on you tube for all to see. However by saying that you removed the cache at 2 am? Well that just does not sound right man.

How about:

Teacher: Johnny, someone says you plagiarized this paper. They say it's too well-written.

Johnny: Well, I didn't.

Teacher: On further review, I'm now positive you plagiarized the paper. You get an F. But I'm not going to show you my proof.

Johnny: And I'm not going to show you my rough draft that far predates any other papers on the subject.

Class: Why should I work hard on my papers if the teacher assumes it's plagiarized if it's too good?

 

Is that a tortured enough analogy?

Edited by Dinoprophet

Share this post


Link to post

I cannot believe he would not have sent a picture with his appeal, or here on the board, unless there was never a cache there, or he is quickly making one that would appear to be a year and a half of work so he can post it.

Seems fishy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Without evidence to the contrary it sounds to me like Super Fly got the shaft on this one.

"Super Fly got the Shaft."

:):(:D:):)

Did no one else get that?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Groundspeak chose to do so publicly.

 

Having taken the low road, I think they should explain their actions.

 

I liken it to an elementary school teacher walking into a classroom, pointing out a student, yelling, "Johnny, You Are A Liar!", then walking out. Johnny may be a liar, but by accusing him in front of his peers, the teacher owes the class an explanation.

 

Maybe I just see calling someone a liar, in public, as too big a deal? :)

Do I need to grow thicker hide? :D

 

Clan, I know I am new here and so should shut up, and don't take this the wrong way, but dude get over it. We know that you feel GS called him a liar in public. However time to move past that point and get to the point of if there really is/was a cache.

 

As to your analogy of the school teacher I think it is more like this. "Johnny, you said you did your homework but I think you didn't so you are getting an F." Well then Johnny reaches into his folder and pulls out the homework that he did and proves the teacher wrong. Johnny does not say, the next day, well you hurt my feelings so I burned the homework last night at 2 am.

 

To the CO, man you had your chance to rub Gs's nose in it. You should have take a video of you walking up to the cache and pulling it off the brick. Then post it on you tube for all to see. However by saying that you removed the cache at 2 am? Well that just does not sound right man.

 

This is just to funny to pass up!!!!

 

Too you day walkers 2am may sound strange, but on the other hand have you ever heard of a third shift??

 

Yes thats right friday night is my saturday and by 2am I was to my limit of hours for the week so I came out and removed the cache.

 

To me it is perfectly normal but I can see how it might seem strange, and this is why I think that questioning 2am is funny..check my posts and you will see that I post throughout the night whenever I get a chance to pry myself from work.

Share this post


Link to post

Not being privy to any of the communications between SF and GS and also not having any knowledge of whether or not the the cache ever existed, I have no idea whether or not the reviewers assessment of the cache is correct.

 

However, since there is no way that the reviewer can absolutely prove that the cache never existed the archival log should not have stated that the cache never existed.

 

He could have just as easily stated that he was archiving the cache and if the owner had any questions he could contact him directly or contact GS at appeals@geocaching.com.

 

There doesn't have to be a reason for the archival given on the cache page. It's generally nice to know why, but in this kind of situation, it's best not to give the reason on the page and just communicate that reason to the CO privately.

 

There is a difference between GS calling someone a liar on their cache page and calling them one in private. One can be easily resolved with no hard feelings and the other leaves a bad taste no matter what the ultimate resolution is.

 

** Edited to add the part in color.

Edited by GeoBain

Share this post


Link to post

I cannot believe he would not have sent a picture with his appeal, or here on the board, unless there was never a cache there, or he is quickly making one that would appear to be a year and a half of work so he can post it.

Seems fishy to me.

This here is enough reason for him not to post it. The doubters wouldn't believe him anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Clan, I know I am new here and so should shut up, and don't take this the wrong way, but dude get over it. We know that you feel GS called him a liar in public. However time to move past that point and get to the point of if there really is/was a cache.

Hi Scott! (or Karen)

Being new is no reason to be silent, so I hope you won't "shut up". Your opinion in this matter, though it varies from mine, is just as valuable. The number of finds you have or the amount of time you've been playing is irrelevant for this issue. Speak your mind, Brother! (or Sister). :D

 

For the record, I do not "feel" Groundspeak called Super Fly a liar, I saw it. Anyone who has been to the cache page saw it. It's done. That was bad form, for a company that purports to be run by professionals. As to whether or not there ever was a cache in place, the time to make that determination would have been before the cache was archived, as part of Groundspeak's investigation, not afterward.

 

Did Groundspeak ever make this determination?

 

Of all the people involved, only one is willing to offer his views on the matter, and he says "No".

 

If you have some evidence to the contrary, now would be a good time to present it.

 

Of all the things you've posted, the only thing that bothers me is your "Get Over It" attitude.

Since you persist in hounding the CO, demanding photographic proof of the cache, you apparently have not gotten "over it".

Is the concept 'innocent until proven guilty' foreign to you? :)

 

I cannot believe he would not have sent a picture with his appeal

Maybe that's because TPTB never asked for a picture?

Judging by what's on the cache page, the existence of this cache was never in doubt.

The only thing TPTB asked for was for Super Fly to check on it.

He did. Then they archived it anyway, calling him a liar in the process.

If there's some secret communique between TPTB and SF, asking for a photo, I'd like to see it.

 

This here is enough reason for him not to post it. The doubters wouldn't believe him anyway.

Agreed. The Groundspeak apologists would be shouting "Photoshop" at the top of their keyboards.

The hide would be forever spoiled for future placement.

We'd still hear naught but cricket sounds from TPTB.

Share this post


Link to post

It is Groundspeak’s policy to protect the privacy of the individual geocacher, regardless of who they are or what they may have done. That is the reason why I have not posted here with any additional details, such as contents of private email messages.

 

That said, I will emphasize that each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions. No one has gone "rogue."

Share this post


Link to post

So... apart from the CO (I assume) has anybody in this thread actually been to ground zero and looked for the cache? Or is speculation the new black?

Share this post


Link to post
Without evidence to the contrary it sounds to me like Super Fly got the shaft on this one.

"Super Fly got the Shaft."

:):(:D:):)

Did no one else get that?

 

I think you'd have to be over a certain age to get that one

Share this post


Link to post

It is Groundspeak’s policy to protect the privacy of the individual geocacher, regardless of who they are or what they may have done.

Jenn, thanx for addressing this issue. In times like these, it's good to hear from the folks at the top.

One question; Is calling a cacher a liar, in public, consistent with that policy? :)

Share this post


Link to post
That said, I will emphasize that each reviewer involved in this issue has acted appropriately and I support their decisions.

 

That may be your opinion, however I disagree. The reviewer called him a liar, in a public place. That is not appropriate!! :)

 

Now that the reviewer has called him a liar, ethically the right thing to do is apologize or prove it.

 

This whole thing has really put a sour taste in my mouth. I hope TPTB don't start treating everyone this way.

Share this post


Link to post

Could be both at error;

Groundspeak could have handled it better AND the cache did not exist in the first place. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Now that the reviewer has called him a liar, ethically the right thing to do is apologize or prove it.

 

I agree If you call someone a liar you need to be ready to prove it.

 

Stating "I stand by what I said. " is not good enough.

Edited by runner_one

Share this post


Link to post

... if Groundspeak called me a liar in a public format....

They didn't. SF choose to share a private email in a public manner. -- BIG difference.

Share this post


Link to post
They didn't. SF choose to share a private email in a public manner. -- BIG difference.

 

They called him a liar on his cache page, when they archived it. That is public.

 

If the reviewer cannot give reasons for believing the cache did not exist, the reviewer should not have accused him of no cache in the note to archive.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Groundspeak chose to do so publicly.

 

Having taken the low road, I think they should explain their actions.

 

I liken it to an elementary school teacher walking into a classroom, pointing out a student, yelling, "Johnny, You Are A Liar!", then walking out. Johnny may be a liar, but by accusing him in front of his peers, the teacher owes the class an explanation.

 

Maybe I just see calling someone a liar, in public, as too big a deal? :)

Do I need to grow thicker hide? :D

 

Clan, I know I am new here and so should shut up, and don't take this the wrong way, but dude get over it. We know that you feel GS called him a liar in public. However time to move past that point and get to the point of if there really is/was a cache.

 

As to your analogy of the school teacher I think it is more like this. "Johnny, you said you did your homework but I think you didn't so you are getting an F." Well then Johnny reaches into his folder and pulls out the homework that he did and proves the teacher wrong. Johnny does not say, the next day, well you hurt my feelings so I burned the homework last night at 2 am.

 

To the CO, man you had your chance to rub Gs's nose in it. You should have take a video of you walking up to the cache and pulling it off the brick. Then post it on you tube for all to see. However by saying that you removed the cache at 2 am? Well that just does not sound right man.

 

Get over the idea that GS can call any of us liars at any time and not be held accountable...OK, sure. Your analogy is quite a ways off, wouldn't the homework need turned in? Wouldn't the student still get an "F" if not turned in on time? And why wouldn't the kid turn it in if done? Surely not to keep secret the kids intelligence (or in the CO's case, creativity).

 

Maybe, if it bothers you to see Clan or anyone else stand up and ask for accountability, maybe you shouldn't be reading this thread instead of suggesting we stop?

 

Anyone can call me a liar anytime they want to. However if I can prove you wrong, trust me I will and I will to everybody and anybody. I will say it high and say it low. SF should be posting so many pictures and videos of his cache that people would get sick of seeing it. However that has not happened. He has just said, they were mean to me and I am not going to play anymore.

 

As far as GS being quiet, who cares. They have said what they said. Now let SF prove them wrong.

 

There are a couple of saying that come to mind.

 

Prison is full of people that say they did not do it. (Don't take this the wrong way, not saying this is a crimian offense.)

 

He who laughs last laughs hardest and longest. Well SF had that chance to laugh at GS and he has lost it.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...