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

Rogue Reviewer?

Recommended Posts

 

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?

 

Wrong analogy. The teacher is saying that he is missing the paper from Johnny. I am sure if Johnny were to turn in a truly excellent paper the teacher would give them all the credit in the world.

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.

 

Yes they did. (or rather one of their reviewers did)

 

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

 

(bolding done by me)

 

Stating that there's been no cache to find for months/years when the cache owner stated in his maintenance note that he "Checked this cache today and everything is good" is calling the cache owner a liar.

 

This was done on the cache page and is really the only thing I take issue with in this whole fiasco.

 

The cache owner may indeed be a liar. The cache may have never been placed. I don't have the foggiest clue. But I still think the appropriate thing would have been to simply archive the cache and advise the owner where to address any questions he may have with the archival.

 

I don't think the reviewer was rogue. I just don't feel that he handled it as amicably as he could have. I also hope that in the future, other reviewers will take note of this situation when confronted with a similar situation.

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? :)

 

 

Clan, well we are defintiely going to have to agree to disagree about my attitude. That is how I live. This is GS site, yes they can call him a liar. Now the honus is on him to prove them wrong. He has not. It would have been simple to do it then the next cache he placed could have been called, "I showed them", of "I told them so" However that is water under the bridge now.

 

BTW have you ever thought that instead of picking on this one geocacher they are actually protecting the rest of the ceocaching community from looking for something that is not there?

Share this post


Link to post

GeoBain, I have found your posts to be constructive.

 

Perhaps it helps to know that the archive note is a very common form letter used by many reviewers. Form letters help us do our work efficiently. Sometimes the wording of a form letter gets put under a magnifying glass, as has happened here.

 

The form letter does not say "this cache is archived because its owner is a liar." That is an extrapolation, and some of the posts have seized upon this in dramatic fashion.

 

Perhaps a shorter note would have been better. But then, there might have been an outcry because no explanation at all was provided.

 

When a reviewer has to act on complaints like these, it is truly a delicate situation.

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.

 

And the reason you did not take pictures or video with your iphone is..............

Edited by ScottKaren

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."

 

The individual involved has waived his privacy by posting at least part, if not all, of the correspondence. The CO also stated that had the specific concerns been identified he could have met with local reviewers, showed them the cache, and put the matter to rest. I am not interested in whether the cache was or was not there, and do not expect Groundspeak to prove a negative. But (assuming the published correspondence to be accurate) then how could the matter be investigated without talking to the CO? Groundspeak can certainly clarify the policies and procedures in place and whether they were followed without revealing sensitive matters.

 

I respect Nomex as a reviewer (he is very conscientious and has been helpful to many of our local cachers) so I am not trying to make it personal one way or the other. I tend to think communications broke down at some point. It would be good to know what actions were taken so that this thread can take its natural course.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post

GeoBain, I have found your posts to be constructive.

 

Perhaps it helps to know that the archive note is a very common form letter used by many reviewers. Form letters help us do our work efficiently. Sometimes the wording of a form letter gets put under a magnifying glass, as has happened here.

 

The form letter does not say "this cache is archived because its owner is a liar." That is an extrapolation, and some of the posts have seized upon this in dramatic fashion.

 

Perhaps a shorter note would have been better. But then, there might have been an outcry because no explanation at all was provided.

 

When a reviewer has to act on complaints like these, it is truly a delicate situation.

It isn't the wording of the note that says GS considers the CO to be a liar. It is the fact that the cache was archived after the CO's apparent compliance with what the reviewer requested. The action of archiving the cache alone, with now note at all, says "liar".

 

I don't know if the cache was in place or not. I have no way of knowing that. The evidence in view certainly does not support the archival.

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

Are you calling me old??? :)

OK, I guess I am over a "certain age"! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
The action of archiving the cache alone, with now note at all, says "liar".

To me it says something closer to "what-everrr". Perhaps Nomex could have changed "there has been no cache" to "it seems like there has been no cache", or "a cache which 27 people can't find is pretty close to being functionally equivalent to no cache", but as Keystone says, when a reviewer archives a cache - an event which probably happens a couple of hundred times every single day of the year - they're not going to draw up the kind of document which the court system needs to send someone to jail.

 

I'm guessing that Groundspeak actually doesn't care too much if the CO gets ticked off about this. Based on the otherwise very high degree of customer service which Groundspeak gives, I'd assume that they have reasons not to worry too much if this CO is unhappy.

Share this post


Link to post

Funny how we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. Superfly checked on the cache as requested and reported back the cache was in place and intact. That is where it should have stopped. The reviewer overstepped in my opinion. Hard to find caches shouldn't have a shelf life. Otherwise the place is going to get kinda dull with LPC's and the like. I myself, prefer the challenge. If the person with their particulars in a knot that started this twist of events would have just placed the cache on their ignore list the rest of the folks that wanted to seek this one out would have been able to do so.

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.

 

And the reason you did not take pictures or video with your iphone is..............

 

Um ------ Its dark????

Share this post


Link to post

Funny how we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent.

 

Ditto!

 

Superfly checked on the cache as requested and reported back the cache was in place and intact. That is where it should have stopped.

 

The two FACTS above are the cornerstone of this whole thread.

 

The reviewer overstepped in my opinion.

 

You have stated the basic facts of this whole thread better than anyone.

When all the other smoke clears the two above Facts make it clear that the reviewer was wrong on this one.

You are not the only one who feels this way.

 

I think Groundspeak could go a long way to mending fences by simply admitting that the reviewer was wrong on this one. I am sure others feel the same way.

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.

 

Yes they did. (or rather one of their reviewers did)

 

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

 

(bolding done by me)

 

Stating that there's been no cache to find for months/years when the cache owner stated in his maintenance note that he "Checked this cache today and everything is good" is calling the cache owner a liar.

 

This was done on the cache page and is really the only thing I take issue with in this whole fiasco.

 

The cache owner may indeed be a liar. The cache may have never been placed. I don't have the foggiest clue. But I still think the appropriate thing would have been to simply archive the cache and advise the owner where to address any questions he may have with the archival.

 

I don't think the reviewer was rogue. I just don't feel that he handled it as amicably as he could have. I also hope that in the future, other reviewers will take note of this situation when confronted with a similar situation.

 

I happen to agree with GeoBain. Now, Keystone posted that the archiving reviewer used a form letter. Personally, I'm inclined to feel that in a delicate case such as this one, that using a form letter to archive a cache was a poor choice. Reading the maintenance request log, the CO's maintenance log and then the archival note, it does appear that the reviewer did not believe the CO and took action.

 

As for the CO posting or emailing a photo , well, if the cache is as described, I'm sure that a photo of the cache in place wouldn't help, as it blends in so well. The CO and at lest one of the reviewers in his area know each other well enough to have traded phone numbers. If the cache was an issue for the local reveiwers, why didn't someone make a call and just say "hey, let's meet at the cache site and settle it once and for all" The CO could let the reveiwer look for a while, then say "why don't you pull on that brick", cache comes off, reviewer is suitably impressed and can state with 100% confidence that the cache does indeed exist.

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? :)

 

"calling him a liar, in public", is your interpretation of a cut n' paste comment that Nomex puts on every cache that he archives. In this instance, it is perhaps unfortunate that he didn't personalize his comments to fit the unique situation. The fact is, I have been reading the same canned paragraph for years. I recognize it for what it is. It's simply a canned response. It was not written to single out the CO in this situation.

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?

 

Wrong analogy. The teacher is saying that he is missing the paper from Johnny. I am sure if Johnny were to turn in a truly excellent paper the teacher would give them all the credit in the world.

And GS is saying they are missing a cache. I think the analogy is rather good.

teacher = GS

Johnny = TDE/SF

paper = cache

plagiarism = fake listing

F = archived cache

draft = photo of cache or other proof

Edited by Dinoprophet

Share this post


Link to post

 

And the reason you did not take pictures or video with your iphone is..............

 

Um ------ Its dark????

 

How about you taking the cache container, and your iphone and showing us exactly where it fit and how it fit and how hard it was to see? Or has the conatiner already been thrown away?

Edited by ScottKaren

Share this post


Link to post

How about:

Teacher: Johnny, someone says you plagiarized this paper. They say it's too well-written. Should be Johnny, someone says you plagarized this paper that we have heard about and not seen. But that you tell us is really good.

Johnny: Well, I didn't.

Teacher: On further review, I'm now positive you plagiarized the paper. that no one has seen 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 not show us your draft?

Johnhy: Because.

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?

 

Wrong analogy. The teacher is saying that he is missing the paper from Johnny. I am sure if Johnny were to turn in a truly excellent paper the teacher would give them all the credit in the world.

And GS is saying they are missing a cache. I think the analogy is rather good.

teacher = GS

Johnny = TDE/SF

paper = cache

plagiarism = fake listing

F = archived cache

draft = photo of cache or other proof

 

The bold is more what the situation is.

Edited by ScottKaren

Share this post


Link to post
Wrong analogy. The teacher is saying that he is missing the paper from Johnny. I am sure if Johnny were to turn in a truly excellent paper the teacher would give them all the credit in the world.
Teacher didn't even check. Teacher assumed.

Share this post


Link to post

 

And GS is saying they are missing a cache. I think the analogy is rather good.

teacher = GS

Johnny = TDE/SF

paper = cache

plagiarism = fake listing

F = archived cache

draft = photo of cache or other proof

 

You left out the part where the whole class demands to know what the teacher told Johnny, in private.

:)

Share this post


Link to post

Funny how we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. Superfly checked on the cache as requested and reported back the cache was in place and intact. That is where it should have stopped. The reviewer overstepped in my opinion. Hard to find caches shouldn't have a shelf life. Otherwise the place is going to get kinda dull with LPC's and the like. I myself, prefer the challenge. If the person with their particulars in a knot that started this twist of events would have just placed the cache on their ignore list the rest of the folks that wanted to seek this one out would have been able to do so.

 

100% exactly right.

Precise and to the point based on the information at hand. Unless new information comes along, I do not see any point in further comment.

Share this post


Link to post

Funny how we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. Superfly checked on the cache as requested and reported back the cache was in place and intact. That is where it should have stopped. The reviewer overstepped in my opinion. Hard to find caches shouldn't have a shelf life. Otherwise the place is going to get kinda dull with LPC's and the like. I myself, prefer the challenge. If the person with their particulars in a knot that started this twist of events would have just placed the cache on their ignore list the rest of the folks that wanted to seek this one out would have been able to do so.

 

100% exactly right.

Precise and to the point based on the information at hand. Unless new information comes along, I do not see any point in further comment.

Actually the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept only holds true in a criminal case. Totally irrelevant here, where there is no charge of a crime whatsoever. Just thought I'd mention that, since that statement has been bounced around here a bit now.

Share this post


Link to post
Wrong analogy. The teacher is saying that he is missing the paper from Johnny. I am sure if Johnny were to turn in a truly excellent paper the teacher would give them all the credit in the world.
Teacher didn't even check. Teacher assumed.

 

And Johnny never even turned in the paper to the teacher or showed it to the rest of the class. Who cares why or what the teacher said.

Share this post


Link to post

GeoBain, I have found your posts to be constructive.

 

Perhaps it helps to know that the archive note is a very common form letter used by many reviewers. Form letters help us do our work efficiently. Sometimes the wording of a form letter gets put under a magnifying glass, as has happened here.

 

The form letter does not say "this cache is archived because its owner is a liar." That is an extrapolation, and some of the posts have seized upon this in dramatic fashion.

 

Perhaps a shorter note would have been better. But then, there might have been an outcry because no explanation at all was provided.

 

When a reviewer has to act on complaints like these, it is truly a delicate situation.

 

Although I know that many of these remarks are canned responses, there is some difference. Nomex did archive another cache that same night in the Grand Rapids area. I received both of these archive notices at 11:45 PM on 11/5/2009.

 

"For GC171MH: Super Fly #30 "Jiendo" (Archived) (Traditional Cache)

Location: Michigan, United States

9.7mi W (15.6km W)

Nomex archived Super Fly #30 "Jiendo" (Archived) (Traditional Cache) at 11/5/2009

 

Log Date: 11/5/2009

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

 

"For GCGWAM: Tango and Cache (Archived) (Traditional Cache)

Location: Michigan, United States

12.4mi SW (20km SW)

Nomex archived Tango and Cache (Archived) (Traditional Cache) at 11/5/2009

 

Log Date: 11/5/2009

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

 

I received the Jiendo notice first, followed by the notice for "Tango and Cache." "Tango and Cache" was disabled in June and had not been found since March. No response from the cache owner in between notices. In the case of Jiendo, he did add "/years" to the response. Although much of this response is a canned response, I feel the addition of years does seem uncalled for.

Share this post


Link to post
Wrong analogy. The teacher is saying that he is missing the paper from Johnny. I am sure if Johnny were to turn in a truly excellent paper the teacher would give them all the credit in the world.
Teacher didn't even check. Teacher assumed.

And Johnny never even turned in the paper to the teacher or showed it to the rest of the class. Who cares why or what the teacher said.

Johnny doesn't need to. Not in this classroom. His word is good enough. Or always has been, at any rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Wrong analogy. The teacher is saying that he is missing the paper from Johnny. I am sure if Johnny were to turn in a truly excellent paper the teacher would give them all the credit in the world.
Teacher didn't even check. Teacher assumed.

And Johnny never even turned in the paper to the teacher or showed it to the rest of the class. Who cares why or what the teacher said.

Johnny doesn't need to. Not in this classroom. His word is good enough. Or always has been, at any rate.

Right. Everyone in the class (all other cachers) automatically received an A (were allowed to list caches without proving their existence). For some reason the teacher insists Johnny write this paper.

Share this post


Link to post

GeoBain, I have found your posts to be constructive.

 

Perhaps it helps to know that the archive note is a very common form letter used by many reviewers. Form letters help us do our work efficiently. Sometimes the wording of a form letter gets put under a magnifying glass, as has happened here.

 

The form letter does not say "this cache is archived because its owner is a liar." That is an extrapolation, and some of the posts have seized upon this in dramatic fashion.

 

Perhaps a shorter note would have been better. But then, there might have been an outcry because no explanation at all was provided.

 

When a reviewer has to act on complaints like these, it is truly a delicate situation.

Did I miss something in these nine pages, or is this new information? What complaint was acted on?

Share this post


Link to post
And GS is saying they are missing a cache. I think the analogy is rather good.

teacher = GS

Johnny = TDE/SF

paper = cache

plagiarism = fake listing

F = archived cache

draft = photo of cache or other proof

If you have to work that hard to explain your analogy, it wasn't successful.
How about you taking the cache container, and your iphone and showing us exactly where it fit and how it fit and how hard it was to see? Or has the conatiner already been thrown away?
According to the CO, he may list the cache on another listing site. Therefore, the container still exists. He could take a picture of it and prove it's existence if he so wished and/or it existed.
Wrong analogy. The teacher is saying that he is missing the paper from Johnny. I am sure if Johnny were to turn in a truly excellent paper the teacher would give them all the credit in the world.
Teacher didn't even check. Teacher assumed.
And Johnny never even turned in the paper to the teacher or showed it to the rest of the class. Who cares why or what the teacher said.
Johnny doesn't need to. Not in this classroom. His word is good enough. Or always has been, at any rate.
You may have just hit on the heart of the issue. You see, this isn't Johnny's classroom. It's the teacher's classroom. When Johnny decides that he is so important to the class that he can ignore the rules of the classroom, he should expect to be called on it.

Share this post


Link to post
And GS is saying they are missing a cache. I think the analogy is rather good.

teacher = GS

Johnny = TDE/SF

paper = cache

plagiarism = fake listing

F = archived cache

draft = photo of cache or other proof

If you have to work that hard to explain your analogy, it wasn't successful.

I acknowledged from the get-go that it was tortured. But it was being further twisted, so I had to spell it out.

Share this post


Link to post

Funny how we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. Superfly checked on the cache as requested and reported back the cache was in place and intact. That is where it should have stopped. The reviewer overstepped in my opinion. Hard to find caches shouldn't have a shelf life. Otherwise the place is going to get kinda dull with LPC's and the like. I myself, prefer the challenge. If the person with their particulars in a knot that started this twist of events would have just placed the cache on their ignore list the rest of the folks that wanted to seek this one out would have been able to do so.

 

100% exactly right.

Precise and to the point based on the information at hand. Unless new information comes along, I do not see any point in further comment.

Actually the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept only holds true in a criminal case. Totally irrelevant here, where there is no charge of a crime whatsoever. Just thought I'd mention that, since that statement has been bounced around here a bit now.

 

Actually the statement is spot on. Groundspeak and the reviewers play the part of judge, jury and executioner every day. While they don't wear the robes and dole out judgments in grand halls they did indeed judge the cache owner as not having told the truth by their action of archival. With no evidence to the fact that the cache was indeed missing, never there, or no actual maintenance check the button was pushed. The stance they took was erroneous at the very least. It was not a one, two, three, or even four star rated hide. It was a five, indicating some measure of extreme difficulty that a great number of cachers would have difficulty locating it. A high number of finds is no indication at all of the skill a cacher may have in finding difficult caches.

 

A mistake was made here and in my opinion it was not by the CO. He did what was requested of him. GS should buck up and admit a mistake was made either publicly or privately and make this thing right. By their inaction is only discourages other potential creative cache hiders for fear that if they make something too difficult it would be archived as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Johnny doesn't need to. Not in this classroom. His word is good enough. Or always has been, at any rate.
You may have just hit on the heart of the issue. You see, this isn't Johnny's classroom. It's the teacher's classroom. When Johnny decides that he is so important to the class that he can ignore the rules of the classroom, he should expect to be called on it.

 

That was not my point, and you know it. To continue to stretch this absurd analogy, none of the other kids had to show any proof, why should Johnny? Why did the teacher single him out over all the others? The only possible guess that I can make is that Johnny told one of his classmates that he didn't really turn it in, and that classmate told the teacher, who took the classmate's word for fact over Johnny's insistance.

Edited by knowschad

Share this post


Link to post

Did I miss something in these nine pages, or is this new information? What complaint was acted on?

 

Well spotted! What complaint?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm out!

 

There are 2 camps here. One says GS did wrong so the CO does not have to do anything. The other says, let the CO prove them wrong. Since these 2 camps are pretty much mutually exclusive, as far as I am concerned, there is no reason to continue a discussion. There will still be people in both camps who will stand by what they think and nothing that can be said will disuade people to change camps. Anything else is just hand waving.

 

Don't bother to call me a chicken, I won't be opening up this thread anymore. When I am done I am done.

Share this post


Link to post

Funny how we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. Superfly checked on the cache as requested and reported back the cache was in place and intact. That is where it should have stopped. The reviewer overstepped in my opinion. Hard to find caches shouldn't have a shelf life. Otherwise the place is going to get kinda dull with LPC's and the like. I myself, prefer the challenge. If the person with their particulars in a knot that started this twist of events would have just placed the cache on their ignore list the rest of the folks that wanted to seek this one out would have been able to do so.

 

100% exactly right.

Precise and to the point based on the information at hand. Unless new information comes along, I do not see any point in further comment.

Actually the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept only holds true in a criminal case. Totally irrelevant here, where there is no charge of a crime whatsoever. Just thought I'd mention that, since that statement has been bounced around here a bit now.

 

Actually the statement is spot on. Groundspeak and the reviewers play the part of judge, jury and executioner every day. While they don't wear the robes and dole out judgments in grand halls they did indeed judge the cache owner as not having told the truth by their action of archival. With no evidence to the fact that the cache was indeed missing, never there, or no actual maintenance check the button was pushed. The stance they took was erroneous at the very least. It was not a one, two, three, or even four star rated hide. It was a five, indicating some measure of extreme difficulty that a great number of cachers would have difficulty locating it. A high number of finds is no indication at all of the skill a cacher may have in finding difficult caches.

 

A mistake was made here and in my opinion it was not by the CO. He did what was requested of him. GS should buck up and admit a mistake was made either publicly or privately and make this thing right. By their inaction is only discourages other potential creative cache hiders for fear that if they make something too difficult it would be archived as well.

You simply do not have enough information available to make these claims. You are stating your opinion and it should be presented as such. It is your opinion that a mistake was made that was not made by the CO. GS has made a decision based upon the information they have. You likely do not have the same information. If you do, please share it.

 

I have absolutely no doubt there is more to this story than has been shared here. I believe the CO is not being completely open in the information shared so far. If the CO wants to disprove the theory that the cache never existed it should be a simple matter of posting a photo or two. The hide style has already been disclosed so I see no reason why photos can't be shared. The CO could also share said photos with the staff at GS and keep them private. Seems easy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm out!

 

There are 2 camps here. One says GS did wrong so the CO does not have to do anything. The other says, let the CO prove them wrong. Since these 2 camps are pretty much mutually exclusive, as far as I am concerned, there is no reason to continue a discussion. There will still be people in both camps who will stand by what they think and nothing that can be said will disuade people to change camps. Anything else is just hand waving.

 

Don't bother to call me a chicken, I won't be opening up this thread anymore. When I am done I am done.

 

Thanks for your input, and you are probably correct in thinking that nothing will be resolved here, but I do think that it is a mistake to ignore an issue like this simply because it is a bit sticky. I mean, after all... what's a little tax on tea, anyway?

Share this post


Link to post

GeoBain, I have found your posts to be constructive.

 

Perhaps it helps to know that the archive note is a very common form letter used by many reviewers. Form letters help us do our work efficiently. Sometimes the wording of a form letter gets put under a magnifying glass, as has happened here.

 

The form letter does not say "this cache is archived because its owner is a liar." That is an extrapolation, and some of the posts have seized upon this in dramatic fashion.

 

Perhaps a shorter note would have been better. But then, there might have been an outcry because no explanation at all was provided.

 

When a reviewer has to act on complaints like these, it is truly a delicate situation.

The use of form letters certainly saves the reviewers time, but on more than one occasion this has lead to misunderstanding between a reviewer and a cache owner. Perhaps the cache owners should know and understand the guidelines as well at the reviewers who deal with them everyday. The cache owner did check a box when he submitted the cache saying that he read and understood the guidelines. So a form letter from the reviewers could simply say "This cache is not in compliance. Please fix the problem and inform me via (email, note on cache page) when this is done. If you don't fix the problem within (reasonable time) I will have to archive the cache." And the cache owner should know what compliance problem needs to fixed.

 

But of course reviewers want to give some help so they use one of several canned messages. The can message for a missing cache seemed to be the most appropriate in this case. And in spite of the fact that the canned message also invites the cache owner to contact the reviewer with questions, it lead to confusion. As far as the cache owner was concerned, this cache wasn't missing. He even checked on then cache and posted that in his re-enable log. That was, of course, not the action the reviewer had intended. Instead he had hoped that owner contact him with evidence that there was a cache to find. But the use of a canned message at a minimum confusing, and could be construed as calling the cache owner a liar.

 

Funny how we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent.

Reviewers are charged with enforcing the guidelines for listing caches on Geocaching.com. In general reviewers trust cache owners when they say they are complying with the guidelines. However, sometimes there is evidence presented that trumps that trust. Even in cases where a cache gets archived immediately based on some evidence presented to reviewer, a cache owner is given the opportunity to provide evidence to the contrary and the cache can be unarchived. The use of a canned message from the review can be read as saying "You say the cache is there but I say there is no cache therefore you are liar". Or it can be read as "Your cache is in violation of the guidelines because there is no cache to find". I don't believe Nomex intended to call the cache owner a liar, and instead has hoped that he would be contacted with information that would show there was a cache to find. However someone misread the message from the reviewer and let this escalate out of control.

 

Wooden Cyclist probably did not do Super Fly any favor by starting this thread. Super Fly could have gone through the appeals process and presented proof that there was a cache to find and gotten it unarchived. But after refering the reviewer as a rouge reviewer, Groundspeak and the reviewer community were bound to circle the wagons. Imagine if they were to reverse Nomex based on what people said in the forum. I expected to see the cache get unarchived after the cache owner had provided sufficient evidence that there was a cache. But instead it got into a fight over who was calling someone a liar. A clever challenging cache is no more and what's more is that some cachers who want to create clever challenging caches may decide not to after seeing what happened here. My take away is that if the reviewer says to contact him with question, to ask questions and try to resolve these misunderstandings with the reviewer or via Groundspeak appeals if you can't resolve it with the reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Johnny doesn't need to. Not in this classroom. His word is good enough. Or always has been, at any rate.
You may have just hit on the heart of the issue. You see, this isn't Johnny's classroom. It's the teacher's classroom. When Johnny decides that he is so important to the class that he can ignore the rules of the classroom, he should expect to be called on it.

 

That was not my point, and you know it. To continue to stretch this absurd analogy, none of the other kids had to show any proof, why should Johnny? Why did the teacher single him out over all the others? The only possible guess that I can make is that Johnny told one of his classmates that he didn't really turn it in, and that classmate told the teacher, who took the classmate's word for fact over Johnny's insistance.

If that were to happen, why wouldn't Johnny simply present his paper and prove its existence?

 

I know that if my little Johnny was accused of not completing a paper when he actually did it, I would make sure that the paper was promptly presented.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a cache GC171MH that took me over a year and a half to build. The container is all custom done and built for this very spot.

 

From owner's 11/5/2009 log:

I think that the decision to archive this cache is wrong. I would like for anyone to point me to the rules of geocaching that state the length of time a cache has been unfound before it is archived. Now I need to pull this one out and find a new home for it.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
If that were to happen, why wouldn't Johnny simply present his paper and prove its existence?

I know that if my little Johnny was accused of not completing a paper when he actually did it, I would make sure that the paper was promptly presented.

Not from what I know of you, my friend. You'd be in the principal's office demanding the teacher put up or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post

GeoBain, I have found your posts to be constructive.

 

Perhaps it helps to know that the archive note is a very common form letter used by many reviewers. Form letters help us do our work efficiently. Sometimes the wording of a form letter gets put under a magnifying glass, as has happened here.

 

The form letter does not say "this cache is archived because its owner is a liar." That is an extrapolation, and some of the posts have seized upon this in dramatic fashion.

 

Perhaps a shorter note would have been better. But then, there might have been an outcry because no explanation at all was provided.

 

When a reviewer has to act on complaints like these, it is truly a delicate situation.

 

Keystone,

 

You guys have a form letter that says, "As there's been no cache to find for months/years"?

 

Would you take a moment to explain why such a form letter exists? I have a hard time understanding why that particular set of words would be in the list of copy-n-paste lines available to reviewers.

 

Thanks for your participation.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, reviewers have form letters for archiving missing caches. I don't use that particular wording but I recognize it as one of the common templates. We need to archive caches when there are issues identified or reported under the "Cache Maintenance" section of the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

GeoBain, I have found your posts to be constructive.

 

Perhaps it helps to know that the archive note is a very common form letter used by many reviewers. Form letters help us do our work efficiently. Sometimes the wording of a form letter gets put under a magnifying glass, as has happened here.

 

The form letter does not say "this cache is archived because its owner is a liar." That is an extrapolation, and some of the posts have seized upon this in dramatic fashion.

 

Perhaps a shorter note would have been better. But then, there might have been an outcry because no explanation at all was provided.

 

When a reviewer has to act on complaints like these, it is truly a delicate situation.

The use of form letters certainly saves the reviewers time, but on more than one occasion this has lead to misunderstanding between a reviewer and a cache owner. Perhaps the cache owners should know and understand the guidelines as well at the reviewers who deal with them everyday. The cache owner did check a box when he submitted the cache saying that he read and understood the guidelines. So a form letter from the reviewers could simply say "This cache is not in compliance. Please fix the problem and inform me via (email, note on cache page) when this is done. If you don't fix the problem within (reasonable time) I will have to archive the cache." And the cache owner should know what compliance problem needs to fixed.

 

But of course reviewers want to give some help so they use one of several canned messages. The can message for a missing cache seemed to be the most appropriate in this case. And in spite of the fact that the canned message also invites the cache owner to contact the reviewer with questions, it lead to confusion. As far as the cache owner was concerned, this cache wasn't missing. He even checked on then cache and posted that in his re-enable log. That was, of course, not the action the reviewer had intended. Instead he had hoped that owner contact him with evidence that there was a cache to find. But the use of a canned message at a minimum confusing, and could be construed as calling the cache owner a liar.

 

Funny how we've gone from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent.

Reviewers are charged with enforcing the guidelines for listing caches on Geocaching.com. In general reviewers trust cache owners when they say they are complying with the guidelines. However, sometimes there is evidence presented that trumps that trust. Even in cases where a cache gets archived immediately based on some evidence presented to reviewer, a cache owner is given the opportunity to provide evidence to the contrary and the cache can be unarchived. The use of a canned message from the review can be read as saying "You say the cache is there but I say there is no cache therefore you are liar". Or it can be read as "Your cache is in violation of the guidelines because there is no cache to find". I don't believe Nomex intended to call the cache owner a liar, and instead has hoped that he would be contacted with information that would show there was a cache to find. However someone misread the message from the reviewer and let this escalate out of control.

 

Wooden Cyclist probably did not do Super Fly any favor by starting this thread. Super Fly could have gone through the appeals process and presented proof that there was a cache to find and gotten it unarchived. But after refering the reviewer as a rouge reviewer, Groundspeak and the reviewer community were bound to circle the wagons. Imagine if they were to reverse Nomex based on what people said in the forum. I expected to see the cache get unarchived after the cache owner had provided sufficient evidence that there was a cache. But instead it got into a fight over who was calling someone a liar. A clever challenging cache is no more and what's more is that some cachers who want to create clever challenging caches may decide not to after seeing what happened here. My take away is that if the reviewer says to contact him with question, to ask questions and try to resolve these misunderstandings with the reviewer or via Groundspeak appeals if you can't resolve it with the reviewer.

 

 

Doing someone a favor was never my intention. (Text bolded by me). The whole situation is troubling and there wasn't enough information on the cache page to make an educated guess as to what had happened. I posted here because I felt that some good could come from a discussion about this event.

 

The name I chose for the thread also reveals that I was venting. Hopefully some of the people who have chosen to read this thread can look past that and learn from the valid and interesting points made by parties on both sides of the discussion.

 

There are also some good laughs to be had by reading the posts.

 

I had lunch today with a cacher who is familiar with some of the parties involved in this issue. After talking to him I believe that the issue is less about whether the cache ever existed and more about the personalities involved. There is some history that has been hinted at here but never really brought out into the open. I cannot expand on this. The cacher I talked to would prefer to stay out of the fray.

 

This thread does not seem to be winding down, at least I hope it isn't. But I would like to thank everyone who has posted. Your posts have been educational, though provoking and entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post

GeoBain, I have found your posts to be constructive.

 

Perhaps it helps to know that the archive note is a very common form letter used by many reviewers. Form letters help us do our work efficiently. Sometimes the wording of a form letter gets put under a magnifying glass, as has happened here.

 

The form letter does not say "this cache is archived because its owner is a liar." That is an extrapolation, and some of the posts have seized upon this in dramatic fashion.

 

Perhaps a shorter note would have been better. But then, there might have been an outcry because no explanation at all was provided.

 

When a reviewer has to act on complaints like these, it is truly a delicate situation.

 

[edited to add: Boy, was I late on that reply! lol!]

 

Keystone,

 

You guys have a form letter that says, "As there's been no cache to find for months/years"?

 

Would you take a moment to explain why such a form letter exists? I have a hard time understanding why that particular set of words would be in the list of copy-n-paste lines available to reviewers.

 

Thanks for your participation.

 

If you (and Keystone) don't mind, I think that I can answer for Keystone,. Each reviewer creates whatever boilerplate emails they need to/chose to use. Those are not written by Groundspeak. However, this one was apparently ever so slightly edited by the reviewer to emphasize a point.

Edited by knowschad

Share this post


Link to post

GeoBain, I have found your posts to be constructive.

 

Perhaps it helps to know that the archive note is a very common form letter used by many reviewers. Form letters help us do our work efficiently. Sometimes the wording of a form letter gets put under a magnifying glass, as has happened here.

 

The form letter does not say "this cache is archived because its owner is a liar." That is an extrapolation, and some of the posts have seized upon this in dramatic fashion.

 

Perhaps a shorter note would have been better. But then, there might have been an outcry because no explanation at all was provided.

 

When a reviewer has to act on complaints like these, it is truly a delicate situation.

 

Keystone,

 

I am satisfied with this being an unfortunate use of a template and that the reviewer probably did not mean it to come off the way it ultimately did.

 

It's just unfortunate this situation panned out the way it did.

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."

Sorry to say this but this message doesn't help in any way, shape, or form.

 

"acted appropriately" is exactly what everyone wants to know about. What steps were used to identify the need for the achiving of the cache?

 

You don't need to give names or provide any sensitive information to answer that question. It's easy to answer it and put everyone's concerns to rest.

 

My question remains. Why is this process being kept a secret?

Share this post


Link to post

Here is an interesting note.

 

In Ohio at a megea event called geobash one of the our michigan reviewers had these words to say........

"Super Fly has never placed an original cache in his life, all of his caches are a rip off of someone elses cache" To that I say first show me a large wooden ammo box built to scale that was built before mine, if there is one I was never aware of it. Second then I must be a master at solving everyone elses puzzle to get my ideas from them.

 

Without naming names here this is the reason that my cache was archived, the reviewers in michigan do not like me - they dont like my puzzles - they dont like my hides. So any chance they can get to shut one of my caches down or to upset me in any way they will jump at.

 

Our reviewers are supposed to be unbiased in there decisions, yet here in west michigan that is not the case.

 

If the same guide lines were followed for every cache then I shouldnt be able to find any caches older than 2 years without a find. Yet there are at least 50 caches around the world that have been out longer than mine, have DNF's on them and yet they stay on the active list.

 

Quite obviously the same action should be taken for these other caches that was taken for my cache.

 

Its about time that people open their eyes and see's that these reviewers of caches are not above the rules and that they too should be accountable for their actions and words used towards others.

Share this post


Link to post

GeoBain,

I understand why you don't want to post a photo as proof. You have stated that you called a reviewer on the phone. why not just invite a reviewer to the cache site and show him or her the cache. No spoiler, and 100% positive proof of the existance of the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

OK!!! With this latest bit of information, I predict the size of this thread to grow by 50% in the next 24 hours!!

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...