Jump to content

Reviewer claims new cache(s) will cause a FTF frenzy


StaticTank

Recommended Posts

So has Groundspeak communicated to you a decision on your appeal?

 

I have heard Reviewers say that it is their role to assure, given the available information, that a listing meets the guidelines, and if it does they publish it.

 

They don't have to like it.

 

Unless I am missing something I do not see a guidelines issue here.

 

If indeed there is no guidelines issue involved then I cannot see why a Reviewer is injecting his personal views into the listing process.

 

It has been my understanding that a Reviewer enforces the guidelines without trying to influence the game with his personal opinions, likes and dislikes.

 

If that role has changed then I think that Groundspeak should communicate that change in role to the geocaching community.

 

This thread is somehow at odds with this post in another - http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4438474 which reads in part

 

I archived a cache because I could not maintain it. A while later (probably a year,) I replaced it and asked the reviewer to reactivate it.I was told I need to re-list the the "new" cache and I ended up putting a cache in the exact same place and the exact same name and the exact same cache page.
Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.

 

The responses to my discussion here will give me pause to ever bring up another topic in the future...I am really disappointed in all of you.

get over it...that comment wasn't even directed at your posts, it was aimed at

 

another poster in this thread.

 

And that make it OK? :D

 

Rude is rude no matter who it was directed at. :D

Link to comment

Agreed. Sounds like the reviewer was doing their job by trying to keep the original caches active.

Not sure that's part of the reviewers job. It's usually to archive old caches when the owner doesn't take care of them. In this case the cache owner decides, for whatever reason, to archive his old cache and put out a new one. Not clear if he is recycling the same container at the same location or is actually doing a "different" hide. But this shouldn't matter. If the reviewers are going to decide what reason a cache owner must have for archiving a cache instead of continuing to maintain it, I may have to switch sides and agree with wavector about who is responsible if somebody sues. :D

 

I sort of understand where IowaReviewer is coming from. There are many people who find the whole idea of recycling caches this way a bit silly and driven by numbers. However that has never been a reason for denying a cache owner the ability to do this. It's pretty common practice in cache dense areas. Cache owners see the number of visits fall way off after all the locals have found the cache. They would like to keep the spot, but would also like a cache that gets visited often. So they archive the old cache and put out a new one. If Groundspeak and the reviewers are now going to deny caches being archived for this reason, it sounds like a new guideline and one that requires some lackey to present a good case as to why it should be.

Link to comment

This reviewer then claims that they cache placement is not allowed because it will cause a FTF frenzy...

 

What do you think?

 

StaticTank

 

We think the emails don't support your wording "NOT ALLOWED". So you started a Forum Frenzie with mis-information.

 

Having said that, I don't know why the Reviewer would care about "FTF Frenzies"--those frenzies are part of the fun and are generally harmless...We think that argument is curious to say the least. (Any new cache would cause a "frenzy" would it not, so, ergo, let's not publish ANY new ones...?????) :D

Link to comment
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"

Interesting. In your opening post, you stated the redux version was not allowed, yet the language I'm seeing here looks more like a suggestion. I may be reading too much into semantics, but there is a difference between "You Should" and "You Must". If the Reviewer is making a suggestion regarding what they think should be done in this type of situation, I agree with them. The same container, at the same coords really doesn't warrant a new GC number, does it? Unless there is something really remarkable about the location, why would your friend want to bring folks back there? Just another smiley for their collection?

 

On the other hand, if the Reviewer has made this a directive, refusing to publish the cache based solely on that reason, and your friend really wants the caches to have new GC numbers, he should take it up the chain of command, sending a polite e-mail, including both the old and new GC numbers to Groundspeak.

 

Well since the reviewer wouldn't publish the new cache it really wasn't a suggestion. I don't believe that Groundspeak wants reviewers to be FTF police. If a cache owner wants to replace a new cache at the same location I don't believe there is a good reason to not do it. I have done it many, many times. Hiding a different cache at the same coordinates. What is the problem with recycling an area. I found a cache today that was in the same coordinates as a recently archived cache and the rating was 3.5 stars different...

 

After having found all of the caches in my area, I really appreciate when caches recycle an area. I hate spending money and my time every weekend driving across country to find new caches. I am thankful that my reviewer has no problem with this. I plan on doing it with four of my caches next week.

 

StaticTank

 

But there is nothing new about those caches. Same cache, same experience. Your friend should move them around, change the container, create a new exerience. If all you want to do is revisit a cache you don't need a new listing for that. Or is that silly smilie face that important to you?

Link to comment

Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.

 

The responses to my discussion here will give me pause to ever bring up another topic in the future...I am really disappointed in all of you.

get over it...that comment wasn't even directed at your posts, it was aimed at

 

another poster in this thread.

 

And that make it OK? :D

 

Rude is rude no matter who it was directed at. :D

 

It was not an uncalled for comment. The user it was directed at has been banned before and is probably banned again.

Link to comment

Is your friend doing something like this?.....

 

 

Recently a CO archived a large number of caches then republished them as new. ...these caches are the same, haven't even been visited by the CO prior to republishing - someone else even replaced a broken container and wet log, another person noted that the log still contained their entry from a year ago. I went back and looked - same cache names and coords. Is this normal? This is very frustrating.

Edited by Lone R
Link to comment

The caches in question were years old and had gone missing. The owner put a brand new container there and they were very likely a completely different cache. This cacher could care less about number hunts, he was not doing it to boost someone's numbers.

 

I enjoy traveling to new areas more than anything but with the economy and having a child that just isn't an option like it used to be. I appreciate new caches in old places. Especially if I haven't visited them for more than two years.

 

My problem with the situation is that the reviewer is even mentioning FTF, they aren't real. There is no email to the cache owner the note was it. There is no guildline problem. Why not publish the new cache?

 

The reason that my friend wasn't on here is because like 75 to 80% of the caching community he doesn't visit the forums.

 

By the way I have met StarBrand, 7 hours from my home and probably twice that or more for him. He is a nice guy.

 

StaticTank

Link to comment

The original post said:

There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy.

 

The Reviewer said:

there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy

 

The original post was totally misleading. Some of the words are the same in both, but they do not say the same thing.

 

Bingo

Link to comment

Let me start by saying that I don't care about this issue at all. This thread is interesting though, so I'll chime in. I also don't believe or not believe the OP. Not my place, I don't have enough experience with GS or the reviewers to have an opinion. A few things though.

 

I would lean towards there being something else in the emails that has been misconstrued by the OP or the CO. Clearly the emails that were posted (partly :D ) here were thought to mean something different than they were meant. My leanings in no way mean that I'm right, or that I would be totally surprised if I were wrong. That being said, if you're going to come on the forums saying things about emails and correspondence but refuse to provide all of it for the viewing, you're going to be called into question, and rightfully so. I appreciate that you may have your reasons for withholding information, but it does you no good in this case if you want support, or even accurate opinions. Just sayin...

 

Which leads me to my next point. I believe earlier you said that you emailed GS with the appeal. (If I misread, I apologize) Why? Not your cache, not your business, not your place to do so.

 

How long were the caches archived before the attempt to relist? Is there a lack of new caches in your area? Tell us about the locations. Are they nice hikes, pretty lakes, big rocks, or tricky hides? Are they parking lot micros? Well maintained while they were there the first time? There is plenty of information that may be important that you could be giving out that you are choosing not to.

 

And the question has yet to be answered: Why, other than to create a FTF race or to boost numbers, doesn't he just unarchive the caches in question? Why put new ones out? I'm really curious, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. There's got to be a reason to do something, what's this cacher's reason for doing this?

 

Ultimately, GS will have the final say, and we'll know for sure that they'll have all the info. Maybe it's the same info we have, maybe there's more. Please let us know what the results are.

Link to comment

I appreciate that you may have your reasons for withholding information, but it does you no good in this case if you want support, or even accurate opinions. Just sayin...

 

And the question has yet to be answered: Why, other than to create a FTF race or to boost numbers, doesn't he just unarchive the caches in question? Why put new ones out? I'm really curious, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. There's got to be a reason to do something, what's this cacher's reason for doing this?

 

There are several things here. First of all THERE IS NO MORE TO THIS. I want an honest opinion...I have given everything I have. The only thing you don't have is the name of the cache or the cache owner. This information would not give you anything new.

 

This cache is obviously in Iowa, near the South Dakota border. Most of the people who would find it, have found it. It sits not being found. The owner merely wanted to place a new cache so others have a new cache to find if they wish. If you don't want to go back to a place you have already visited then don't go. I for one would go back. The area is a nice place. It is near the Sioux River and his quite a nice hike.

 

I have corresponded with Groundspeak on the subject and they are helping me.

 

This kind of stuff makes me appreciate my reviewer who would have published this cache without even thinking about it.

 

StaticTank

Link to comment

The guidelines do make mention of cache longevity. If the same spot is still available and the same cache owner wants to have a cache there, there's no good reason to make a new listing.

Are you sure there is no good reason? What if the cache owner wants to replace a micro with a regular? What if he had a puzzle that nobody was able to solve so he changes it to a traditional? What if he has some new camouflage that works better? What if the location has changed enough so that original hide won't work anymore and he needs to do something different? I'd bet there are plenty of good reasons to archive a cache and put a new one in the same spot. The problem with requiring a reason is that it becomes a "wow" requirement, where the reviewer has to decide if the hide has changed enough or the reason is good enough to allow it. Instead, it would be better to just allow cache owners to archive their caches when they feel like it and if they submit a new cache right away to approve it so long as it meets the guidelines and not have reviewers not publish caches based on their personal preferences. (Or we could go back to calling them "approvers" :D )

Link to comment

I appreciate that you may have your reasons for withholding information, but it does you no good in this case if you want support, or even accurate opinions. Just sayin...

 

And the question has yet to be answered: Why, other than to create a FTF race or to boost numbers, doesn't he just unarchive the caches in question? Why put new ones out? I'm really curious, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. There's got to be a reason to do something, what's this cacher's reason for doing this?

 

There are several things here. First of all THERE IS NO MORE TO THIS. I want an honest opinion...I have given everything I have. The only thing you don't have is the name of the cache or the cache owner. This information would not give you anything new.

 

This cache is obviously in Iowa, near the South Dakota border. Most of the people who would find it, have found it. It sits not being found. The owner merely wanted to place a new cache so others have a new cache to find if they wish. If you don't want to go back to a place you have already visited then don't go. I for one would go back. The area is a nice place. It is near the Sioux River and his quite a nice hike.

 

I have corresponded with Groundspeak on the subject and they are helping me.

 

This kind of stuff makes me appreciate my reviewer who would have published this cache without even thinking about it.

 

StaticTank

 

So I ask again, why are YOU in contact with GS? It's not your cache. You don't have any business sending them emails for somebody elses cache. There has been no good reason posted for new caches to be published other than so people can find them again. In my eyes, that's not good enough. If the spot is nice (we still don't know, another unanswered question) then why do you need a cache to go back?

 

As far as guideline violations go, The longevity guideline is the only one I can think of that might apply to this.

Link to comment

As far as guideline violations go, The longevity guideline is the only one I can think of that might apply to this.

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons.

So apparantly there are valid reasons for archiving a cache. I would think that I as cache owner could decide when to archive my cache, particularly if it has been hidden for at least 3 months. But if the guidelines say I have to have a valid reason, I sure would like a better definition of what that means. "Wow"?

Link to comment

As far as guideline violations go, The longevity guideline is the only one I can think of that might apply to this.

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons.

So apparantly there are valid reasons for archiving a cache. I would think that I as cache owner could decide when to archive my cache, particularly if it has been hidden for at least 3 months. But if the guidelines say I have to have a valid reason, I sure would like a better definition of what that means. "Wow"?

 

Don't be argumentative.

Link to comment

Are you sure there is no good reason? What if the cache owner wants to replace a micro with a regular? What if he had a puzzle that nobody was able to solve so he changes it to a traditional? What if he has some new camouflage that works better? What if the location has changed enough so that original hide won't work anymore and he needs to do something different? I'd bet there are plenty of good reasons to archive a cache and put a new one in the same spot. The problem with requiring a reason is that it becomes a "wow" requirement, where the reviewer has to decide if the hide has changed enough or the reason is good enough to allow it. Instead, it would be better to just allow cache owners to archive their caches when they feel like it and if they submit a new cache right away to approve it so long as it meets the guidelines and not have reviewers not publish caches based on their personal preferences. (Or we could go back to calling them "approvers" :D )

 

A cache's size can be changed without creating a new listing.

 

Creating a different cache, i.e. putting a traditional where there was once a puzzle, is not the same as just rejuvenating an old traditional with a new GC#.

 

If there is something vastly different about the new cache, then perhaps it may call for a new listing.

 

But we're not speaking in hypotheticals. As the OP has made clear, these are traditional caches being placed in the same spot as the old ones. Since the cache owner has no intention of making any substantial changes to the caches, there's no reason to create new listings. The old listings can be recycled along with the cache placements.

 

If there is a dire need for new caches in the area, then the cache owner should look for new spots, or change the nature of these hides enough that it actually warrants a new listing. If the caches in this area are so stale and the economy is so depressed that the local cachers can't afford a tank of gas to go look for caches elsewhere, perhaps some new multis or puzzles would spice things up.

Link to comment

As far as guideline violations go, The longevity guideline is the only one I can think of that might apply to this.

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons.

So apparantly there are valid reasons for archiving a cache. I would think that I as cache owner could decide when to archive my cache, particularly if it has been hidden for at least 3 months. But if the guidelines say I have to have a valid reason, I sure would like a better definition of what that means. "Wow"?

 

The guidelines don't say you need a reason to archive a cache. The guidelines apply to the publication of new caches. The reviewer is right in questioning the publication of a "new" cache under these circumstances.

 

If there was a "valid" reason for archiving the caches in the first place, and that reason still stands, then why is the cache owner publishing "new" caches in the exact same location? If the reasons for archiving the old ones are no longer applicable, then the old listings should be revived.

Link to comment

Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.

 

The responses to my discussion here will give me pause to ever bring up another topic in the future...I am really disappointed in all of you.

 

jedi-mind-trick.jpg

You are not the troll he was referring to.

 

But thanks for finally posting the rest of the story so that we can see it and pass judgment from afar.

Yea-same cache same location same experience, not a reason for a new listing.

Link to comment

But we're not speaking in hypotheticals. As the OP has made clear, these are traditional caches being placed in the same spot as the old ones. Since the cache owner has no intention of making any substantial changes to the caches, there's no reason to create new listings. The old listings can be recycled along with the cache placements.

The OP hasn't made it clear that these are substantially the same cache. The cache owner may be using a new container, or the hide may be in a different spot (it isn't even clear that coordinates were not changed). But my argument is that having to be "substantially" different is a "Wow" requirement. It becomes a judgment of the reviewer of just what has to change to allow a cache owner to archive his cache and place a new one.

Link to comment

That is really all there is to the story. The owner went to replace his caches that had gone missing. He wanted them to be in the same spot but something a little different. He named them similar and it was denied because "it would cause a FTF frenzy". Nothing more to the story.

 

StaticTank

 

I want to hear the rest of the story. I don't believe that story for a moment.

 

I agree with all the skeptics, there is more to this story.

 

What GC codes goes with the caches that might be replaced?

How many caches are we talking about? How close are they to one another?

 

Wow, tough crowd today.

Link to comment

That is really all there is to the story. The owner went to replace his caches that had gone missing. He wanted them to be in the same spot but something a little different. He named them similar and it was denied because "it would cause a FTF frenzy". Nothing more to the story.

 

StaticTank

 

I want to hear the rest of the story. I don't believe that story for a moment.

 

I agree with all the skeptics, there is more to this story.

 

What GC codes goes with the caches that might be replaced?

How many caches are we talking about? How close are they to one another?

 

Wow, tough crowd today.

 

Ya, a bit, but I'm okay with it. I'm in a mood I guess....

 

This just sounds like a way for local cachers to get multiple smileys on one cache. If that's how you want to play, go to town. If there are a shortage of caches in the area, PUT NEW ONES OUT! This is not a new cache. It's not a different cacher replacing a long archived cache. It's a way for this cacher to boost his buddy's stats. That's okay. Go for it. Just don't try to validate it as something that it's not, that's all I'm sayin.

Link to comment

This just sounds like a way for local cachers to get multiple smileys on one cache. If that's how you want to play, go to town. If there are a shortage of caches in the area, PUT NEW ONES OUT! This is not a new cache. It's not a different cacher replacing a long archived cache. It's a way for this cacher to boost his buddy's stats. That's okay. Go for it. Just don't try to validate it as something that it's not, that's all I'm sayin.

 

they would go for it if the reviewer would do his job and approve the cache since it doesnt break the rules.

 

Why are supporting two different sides of this issue in two different threads? Is your name Andy?

 

Doh! I guess it was my turn to get sucked in. Sorry it took so long people, won't happen again.

Link to comment

why doesnt anyone listen to toz? he is so wise.

 

does it matter if anything changed?

 

if it is longer than 3 months the rules allow it.

 

so what is the problem?

 

This is exactly how I feel. I see so many people stating things like play how you want. If you don't like LPCs don't look for them. If someone wants to make a team a split up to boost numbers found in a day go ahead. If someone wants to reuse locations (it is done often here) why not let them do it. There isn't anything in the guildlines that says there can't be a new cache in the same spot. Caches around here tend to go unfound for long periods of time after they have been around for two years. I don't often go around trying to boost my numbers. I would rather spend one day looking for a really awesome cache than getting 200. But I see the merit of replacing caches with new ones.

 

StaticTank

Link to comment

why doesnt anyone listen to toz? he is so wise.

 

does it matter if anything changed?

 

if it is longer than 3 months the rules allow it.

 

so what is the problem?

 

This is exactly how I feel. I see so many people stating things like play how you want. If you don't like LPCs don't look for them. If someone wants to make a team a split up to boost numbers found in a day go ahead. If someone wants to reuse locations (it is done often here) why not let them do it. There isn't anything in the guildlines that says there can't be a new cache in the same spot. Caches around here tend to go unfound for long periods of time after they have been around for two years. I don't often go around trying to boost my numbers. I would rather spend one day looking for a really awesome cache than getting 200. But I see the merit of replacing caches with new ones.

 

StaticTank

 

As far as I care you can do it all you want. I'm still gonna point and laugh. It is the same location, same owner. Has anything changed? If not then the whole thing is silly.

Link to comment

Here is the quote from the reviewer note on the cache:

 

IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"

 

and the other cache:

 

IowaAdmin: "Same story as your other cache -- no reason for this to be a new cache because it's not a new location."

 

I really don't care if any of you believe that there is more to this. That is it. My friend is not hiding anything. There is no more to it. I know the location, I know the hider he is a very close friend and I telling you there is no more to this...this is the only message that has been exchanged between the reviewer and the cacher.

 

@knowschad, this is not one of the people you are probably thinking of.

 

StaticTank

Sorry...I agree with the reviewer...

 

I don't read it as being denied because it will cause a "FTF Frenzy"...I see it being denied becuase there is no need for a new listing if only a "little change" is introduced...

Link to comment

What is wrong a hider acrhiving his caches and relisting them? What is wrong generating new traffic and allowing locals to get a few more smileys?

 

Doesn't it kind of defeat the idea behind geocaching. Someone places a cache and the coordinates are published. You download the coordinates, navigate to that location using a GPS, search for the container and sign the log.

 

The case of caches archived and relisted, none of those activities are required. If a CO is just archiving and relisting the cache they aren't placing a new cache. If someone has previously found the cache, they won't need to download coordinates, enter them into a GPS, navigation to that location using the coordinates, and search for a container. They already know exactly where it is. Do you honestly want to call that geocaching?

Link to comment

 

Sorry...I agree with the reviewer...

 

I don't read it as being denied because it will cause a "FTF Frenzy"...I see it being denied becuase there is no need for a new listing if only a "little change" is introduced...

How much change is too little? Suppose the cache owner archived the old cache because the new one is going to be 526 feet away. Rather than having the new one rejected for being too close, they archive the old one since it isn't getting many finds anyhow and besides they don't want to maintain two caches. If that's OK, how about the new cache is only 150 away from the old one? What distance is too small to be considered a new hide? Or lets just say the coordinates are the same, but the new cache is hidden is a significantly different style. Lets say one was hanging in a bush and the other was under a pile of sticks. What if one was one star difficulty and the other is 4 star difficulty? How much difference is needed before it's substantially different?

 

The idea that a reviewer can make the decision on what is substantially a new cache is no different that having reviewers decide if the location was "wow" enough for a cache in the first place. I have no doubt that there is a portion of the Geocaching community that wishes the reviewers had the right to deny caches they feel are not in a good enough location. Fortunately, we don't live in this authoritarian world. Cachers can place a cache anyplace that meets the guidelines. They can archive the their cache whenever they have a reason for doing so. (The guidelines say "valid reason" but since nobody from Groundspeak has said what that means, I prefer to allow the cache owner any reason. What is Groundspeak going to do if the cache owner takes his cache and leaves nothing to find?). If a cache meets the guidelines, reviewer ought not to be making up new guidelines on the fly. If you want guidelines that say: "You can't place a cache closer than 528 ft. from an cache which you have archived in the past 6 months unless you can demonstrate that your new cache is substantially different" then put it in the guidelines and prepare for threads on "Why did the reviewer not think this was substantially different".

Link to comment
There isn't anything in the guildlines that says there can't be a new cache in the same spot.

I guess that depends on your interpretation. For instance, there is this quote from the guidelines that may very well apply:

"At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed."

While that's not specifically denying writing another cache page for the sole purpose of other cachers getting to boost their find counts in a lame manner, it could certainly serve as a blanket excuse not to do silly things that are not prohibited by the guidelines.

Link to comment

 

Sorry...I agree with the reviewer...

 

I don't read it as being denied because it will cause a "FTF Frenzy"...I see it being denied becuase there is no need for a new listing if only a "little change" is introduced...

How much change is too little? Suppose the cache owner archived the old cache because the new one is going to be 526 feet away. Rather than having the new one rejected for being too close, they archive the old one since it isn't getting many finds anyhow and besides they don't want to maintain two caches. If that's OK, how about the new cache is only 150 away from the old one? What distance is too small to be considered a new hide? Or lets just say the coordinates are the same, but the new cache is hidden is a significantly different style. Lets say one was hanging in a bush and the other was under a pile of sticks. What if one was one star difficulty and the other is 4 star difficulty? How much difference is needed before it's substantially different?

 

The idea that a reviewer can make the decision on what is substantially a new cache is no different that having reviewers decide if the location was "wow" enough for a cache in the first place. I have no doubt that there is a portion of the Geocaching community that wishes the reviewers had the right to deny caches they feel are not in a good enough location. Fortunately, we don't live in this authoritarian world. Cachers can place a cache anyplace that meets the guidelines. They can archive the their cache whenever they have a reason for doing so. (The guidelines say "valid reason" but since nobody from Groundspeak has said what that means, I prefer to allow the cache owner any reason. What is Groundspeak going to do if the cache owner takes his cache and leaves nothing to find?). If a cache meets the guidelines, reviewer ought not to be making up new guidelines on the fly. If you want guidelines that say: "You can't place a cache closer than 528 ft. from an cache which you have archived in the past 6 months unless you can demonstrate that your new cache is substantially different" then put it in the guidelines and prepare for threads on "Why did the reviewer not think this was substantially different".

 

Again, you're going off on a tangent about hypothetical scenarios with different variables.

 

The situation under discussion in this thread pertains to traditional caches being placed in exactly the same place as previous traditional caches owned by the same person. Given that the guidelines address the issue of "cache longevity," it's not out of line for the reviewer to ask why the old listings aren't being revived along with the cache locations.

Link to comment
Think other profiles that are tremendously annoying and keep coming back somehow...

I have reason to believe our current pest is named Mark, not Andy. :D

 

I don't know who it is but it's recent entrance into the forums reminded me of something I read recently. I can't quite put my finger on where I read it. Oh, that's right it was in the "forum guidelines"...

 

4. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.

Link to comment

The guidelines do make mention of cache longevity. If the same spot is still available and the same cache owner wants to have a cache there, there's no good reason to make a new listing.

Are you sure there is no good reason? What if the cache owner wants to replace a micro with a regular? What if he had a puzzle that nobody was able to solve so he changes it to a traditional? What if he has some new camouflage that works better? What if the location has changed enough so that original hide won't work anymore and he needs to do something different? I'd bet there are plenty of good reasons to archive a cache and put a new one in the same spot. ...

You are correct. This is part of "The rest of the story" that we are not being given. If the OP would tell us this stuff, we could give a better opinion.

Link to comment

I don't see what the issue is here. Why doesn't the owner just reactivate the old ones and get on with it? He/she can change the cache pages and the titles of the caches if it's that important.

 

New caches make Iowans go CRAZY. NEW CACHE?!! AAARRRGGGHHH!

 

I agree with the reviewer. So they couldn't have just updated the cache page with some new detail? Quit wasting his time beyond unarchiving it for you. :D

Link to comment

why doesnt anyone listen to toz? he is so wise.

 

does it matter if anything changed?

 

if it is longer than 3 months the rules allow it.

 

so what is the problem?

 

This is exactly how I feel. I see so many people stating things like play how you want. If you don't like LPCs don't look for them. If someone wants to make a team a split up to boost numbers found in a day go ahead. If someone wants to reuse locations (it is done often here) why not let them do it. There isn't anything in the guildlines that says there can't be a new cache in the same spot. Caches around here tend to go unfound for long periods of time after they have been around for two years. I don't often go around trying to boost my numbers. I would rather spend one day looking for a really awesome cache than getting 200. But I see the merit of replacing caches with new ones.

 

StaticTank

Just for fun, try looking up ol' insomniaxe there. Doesn't exist as of a few minutes ago, and for good reason.

Link to comment

why doesnt anyone listen to toz? he is so wise.

 

does it matter if anything changed?

 

if it is longer than 3 months the rules allow it.

 

so what is the problem?

 

This is exactly how I feel. I see so many people stating things like play how you want. If you don't like LPCs don't look for them. If someone wants to make a team a split up to boost numbers found in a day go ahead. If someone wants to reuse locations (it is done often here) why not let them do it. There isn't anything in the guildlines that says there can't be a new cache in the same spot. Caches around here tend to go unfound for long periods of time after they have been around for two years. I don't often go around trying to boost my numbers. I would rather spend one day looking for a really awesome cache than getting 200. But I see the merit of replacing caches with new ones.

 

StaticTank

Just for fun, try looking up ol' insomniaxe there. Doesn't exist as of a few minutes ago, and for good reason.

 

He was Spamtastic! :D

Link to comment

I was about to tell you to spend your time searching for Tunnel Vision II since it hasn't been found instead of getting people to make new hides. Then I realized you own Tunnel Vision II. :( I never found the first version - looks like the second one's a bigger bugger than the first! I might have to go "visit my friends" in SD soon!!!

Link to comment

Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.

 

The responses to my discussion here will give me pause to ever bring up another topic in the future...I am really disappointed in all of you.

That comment was NOT aimed at you, Static. It was aimed at a recent problem that has posted to your thread.
Link to comment

Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.

 

The responses to my discussion here will give me pause to ever bring up another topic in the future...I am really disappointed in all of you.

get over it...that comment wasn't even directed at your posts, it was aimed at another poster in this thread.

Think you could have phrased that better, Robert?
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...