Jump to content

I was wrong but.............


Silver-Fox

Recommended Posts

Sometimes a malicious (person) will post a "needs archived" notice on a cache which he hasn't actually visited.

The guidelines state that personal attacks and profanity are not allowed.

So what do you intend doing about it eh ? Personal insults have been made

As far as I could tell, Forester's posting, whilst being a bit err... colourful... made no attack against any particular person.... just some totally anonymous 'malicious individual'. So... how does the personal attack stuff apply?

John, it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to look through his caches and see that I am the only person that has filed an SBA against any of his caches. So that is how it applies.

Link to comment

 

*Raises hand*

 

Yes, been there, done that too.

 

Not "frequently" but a few times. (In circumstances as suggested by PP's post, when there has been no response from the cache owner to DNFs and NM posts.)

 

I'm happy to put a NA post to bring such a cache to the attention of a reviewer. That's all I'm doing - saying, "Please look at this cache situation and see what you think. I think it might need archiving."

 

MrsB

 

Seems like it might be a semantics problem - a common cause of many scorched earth fall outs.

 

This probably belongs in site suggestions, but perhaps this kind of thing could be solved by changing the option to "Needs Review", "Needs Attention" or "Reviewer Assistance"... just a little less zingy but basically achieving the same thing.

 

That way rather than a CO feeling as though someone was targeting them by attempting to get their cache archived, it sounds more like someone has called for mediation, with the 'benefit of doubt' assumption that the cacher has tried contacting the CO.

 

I don't want to sound like a hippy - but I think we should be aiming towards some kind of harmony in geocaching. Sometimes it just feels like battles are constantly being fought between cachers and COs with little thought or attention paid to the symbiotic relationship between the two.

 

I need people to hide caches so I can find them. I err on the side of good intentions of the CO if I see a cache is disabled for a long time.

 

I have a few watches set on Flonopoly series in London, I see endless logs on these with people complaining when one is disabled... yet (to me) this is a great series and it seems thankfully reviewers have been sympathetic to firelanterns maintenance schedule.

 

And yet of those who do post NA logs, and you are entitled to - it's what they are there for, how many of those locations do you

 

a) Place your own cache after the original is archived (thus utilising a 'freed up' spot)

b ) See someone else place a cache in this freed up spot?

 

This is a genuine question. I ask because close to me I've seen 2 caches archived now that have not had any kind of new replacement within 1000m after the old was archived.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

 

*Raises hand*

 

Yes, been there, done that too.

 

Not "frequently" but a few times. (In circumstances as suggested by PP's post, when there has been no response from the cache owner to DNFs and NM posts.)

 

I'm happy to put a NA post to bring such a cache to the attention of a reviewer. That's all I'm doing - saying, "Please look at this cache situation and see what you think. I think it might need archiving."

 

MrsB

 

<snip>Seems like it might be a semantics problem - a common cause of many scorched earth fall outs.

 

This probably belongs in site suggestions, but perhaps this kind of thing could be solved by changing the option to "Needs Review", "Needs Attention" or "Reviewer Assistance"... just a little less zingy but basically achieving the same thing.

 

That way rather than a CO feeling as though someone was targeting them by attempting to get their cache archived, it sounds more like someone has called for mediation, with the 'benefit of doubt' assumption that the cacher has tried contacting the CO.<snip>

 

 

We're going to have to stop practising our mind-melding in a public forum. :lol:

 

I did think about putting this suggestion over in the gc.com website forum but desisted because a.) it's probably been suggested before and b.) they seem rather busy over there just now, handling all the incoming posts following the last Updates. :lol:

 

MrsB

Link to comment

 

*Raises hand*

 

Yes, been there, done that too.

 

Not "frequently" but a few times. (In circumstances as suggested by PP's post, when there has been no response from the cache owner to DNFs and NM posts.)

 

I'm happy to put a NA post to bring such a cache to the attention of a reviewer. That's all I'm doing - saying, "Please look at this cache situation and see what you think. I think it might need archiving."

 

MrsB

 

<snip>Seems like it might be a semantics problem - a common cause of many scorched earth fall outs.

 

This probably belongs in site suggestions, but perhaps this kind of thing could be solved by changing the option to "Needs Review", "Needs Attention" or "Reviewer Assistance"... just a little less zingy but basically achieving the same thing.

 

That way rather than a CO feeling as though someone was targeting them by attempting to get their cache archived, it sounds more like someone has called for mediation, with the 'benefit of doubt' assumption that the cacher has tried contacting the CO.<snip>

 

 

We're going to have to stop practising our mind-melding in a public forum. :lol:

 

I did think about putting this suggestion over in the gc.com website forum but desisted because a.) it's probably been suggested before and b.) they seem rather busy over there just now, handling all the incoming posts following the last Updates. :lol:

 

MrsB

 

Gosh! LOL for some reason I missed that post... :lol:

Link to comment

 

And yet of those who do post NA logs, and you are entitled to - it's what they are there for, how many of those locations do you

 

a) Place your own cache after the original is archived (thus utilising a 'freed up' spot)

b ) See someone else place a cache in this freed up spot?

 

This is a genuine question. I ask because close to me I've seen 2 caches archived now that have not had any kind of new replacement within 1000m after the old was archived.

 

This assumes that NA is placed by somebody local to the cache.

 

I follow a similar policy to TDW. We cache all over the country and it is galling to research a new caching area and find that quite a few of the local caches have been disabled for a substantial period and no action taken or update provided by the CO. So I sometimes raise a NA to trigger a response from either the CO or the reviewers.

 

IMHO it is better to raise a NA publicly so other cachers can see what is happening than send a PM. If the cache is still down for a valid reason then the CO can put this information as a note on the cache page in reply to the NA. Everyone can then see the current status.

 

I agree that the NA could be changed to Needs Review, or something similar, to make it appear less agressive.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...