I hate the direction Geocaching is going.

[+MrCJDL]

Just a thought... 'Greetings from Germany' might not mean it's been an armchair log... it's just something that they say (more so, I have found, than other non-natively English speaking European nationals). The Dutch do it a lot too. There are a number of local cachea along a long distance footpath that is regularly used by international visitors, and have a few 'Greetings from.....' logs, but they are valid (I regularly check the logs on mine).

 

Now that I think about it, I too (after signing the physical log) left this eLog in a cache in Amsterdam: "3rd cache in Amsterdam, clever hiding place... Took some effort to get it out ! Met some other cachers who were disabled and couldn't reach GZ. Greetings from Scotland. TFTC ! :-)" But, that could quite have easily just have been a shorter log "Greetings from Scotland. TFTC ! :-)" - would you automatically assume that was an armchair log - just because I mention my country of origin ?

 

It's understandable that this might happen from time to time, but perhaps they logged it late and forgot to change the date... so it looks suspicious. Nobody seems to have actually checked, just assumed. I certainly haven't checked each of the 1300+ logs on that particular cache - but I did scroll back about a year - for the life of me, I can't see any obvious 'armchair' logs ?

 

Yes, rules are rules, but I really don't understand WHY the person who flagged this did so... other than out of some sense of 'stick to the rules' / cache police mentatilty.

 

This also brings up the 'adoption' question. Surely, there must be some sort of common sense applied at times - a cache in this sort of position, given its significance, with that sort of history / longevity - should be kept !

Edited July 20, 2011 by cjdl

[+addisonbr]

Apparently some sort of societal issue...

Norms develop differently in different places. Groundspeak has tried to educate the entire geocaching audience regarding how they'd like virtuals to be logged, but they're fighting a norm that has been established, and some language / cultural barriers as well.

 

Complicating things, there are parallels to physical caches here in the United States. For example, Groundspeak is very firm about the fact that (with the exception of challenge caches), if you sign the log, you can claim the smiley. So a puzzle that requires a year's worth of blood, sweat and tears for even the most MENSA of MENSA people to solve? Tag along with your friend to sign the log, and you can claim it as a find. 30-stage multi-cache that requires 12 kilometers of 4+ terrain hiking? Get the final coordinates through email and the find is yours.

 

And it's *definitively* yours. If the CO deletes your log, you can appeal to Groundspeak and they WILL reinstate your log, and if the battle goes on long enough, it can even be locked.

 

The practice of claiming caches in this manner is absurd to me. Spiritually it shares a lot with armchair logging of virtuals. Go to the site, figure out some questions, log the virtual cache. Well, if you are clever enough to do it online, it's not HUGELY different than the US, Groundspeak-protected practice of claiming a multi-cache by having a friend text you the final coordinates? (Yes I understand that you still had to go out into the field, but I think you see my broader point.)

 

I think they're both silly, but I can understand how once a norm is established it can be difficult to unwind. Geocaching is a worldwide game but it's still very US-centric (if I were an avid German cacher, I would be a little disappointed at the icons from last summer that could only be obtained if it was easy for you to get to Seattle on a specific weekend). It makes sense to me that Germans would probably form their own communities to discuss German geocaching, and that the game might evolve a little differently.

 

I'm not saying that armchair logging of virtuals is okay, only that I can see how a norm might develop in some places where it's not viewed quite as negatively. Just like we accept that Groundspeak will protect silly logs on my puzzle cache that takes most people weeks to solve.

[+addisonbr]

Just a thought... 'Greetings from Germany' might not mean it's been an armchair log... it's just something that they say (more so, I have found, than other non-natively English speaking European nationals).

I own no virtual caches, but I've received close to 150 "Greetings from Germany" notes in my online logs. I have collected enough of the logbooks to know that they are virtually all, if not literally all, legitimate finds.

[+tozainamboku]

Just a thought... 'Greetings from Germany' might not mean it's been an armchair log... it's just something that they say (more so, I have found, than other non-natively English speaking European nationals).

I own no virtual caches, but I've received close to 150 "Greetings from Germany" notes in my online logs. I have collected enough of the logbooks to know that they are virtually all, if not literally all, legitimate finds.

No doubt that the majority of "Greetings from Germany" logs are legitimate. It seems that among the logs on virtual caches that appear to be from armchair loggers there is a high percentage that say "Greetings from Germany".

 

I believe that most geocachers in Germany (as well as any other country) understand the idea is to actually visit caches. They don't log finds on virtuals just because they can find the answers on the internet and know the owner won't delete their online log. However, I've heard a theory that when virtual cache was translated into German is came out as virtual caching so that someone might think this means you don't actually visit the cache.

 

I think that armchair logging began because a few cache owners (probably in Germany) hid virtual caches and posted that they would allow "virtual" finds by anyone who could answer the verification question. These caches owners probably liked the idea of cachers from all over the world leaving logs on their cache page. Caches like the infamous Four Windows soom appeared, where the intent was solely to be armchair logged. Bookmark lists were created of these armchair virtual caches and many cachers, from all over the world, began logging them.

 

What happened next was a small group of cachers who started actively looking for other virtual caches that could be armchair logged. They began to find caches where the cache owner appeared to not actively check the logs on the cache. Many were caches where the owner used a "certificate of accomplishment" that was opened with a password so the owner didn't have to respond to emails at all. These caches were added to bookmark lists as well. In many cases, cache owners got fed up with armchair logs and archived their caches. Many cache owners began to complain to Groundspeak about this practice.

 

Early on Groundspeak updated the guidelines for logging of virtual caches to emphasize that the intent was to visit these locations. The guidelines also emphasized that virtual cache owners must visit Geocaching.com periodically and do QC on the the posts to their cache page. As the practice became more widespread and was affecting more cache owners who didn't want to have these logs on their caches, Grounspeak clarified the policy with this post. It was at this time that the policy of archiving virtual caches where the cache owner was not deleting these logs was adopted.

[+Coldgears]

There is a word I use to describe people who think that the integrity of the game need protection from "cheaters". It begins with "p".

 

The difference between a puritan and someone who thinks the game needs protection from cheaters, is those who delete legitimate found logs because they didn't sign the log, regardless of how much proof they have of actually being there, and those who only delete legitimate false logs.

 

I really don't see what all the fuss is about though, virtuals are coming back, why not just hide a new one at four corners?

[Pup Patrol]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about though, virtuals are coming back, why not just hide a new one at four corners?

 

A.) We have no idea what form the new "virtuals" will be taking. I'm guessing there will be somewhat more stringent rules than in the old days.

 

B.) The Four Corners Monument is on private property where the owners have said that they do not want caches placed there.

 

Odds are, the reviewer had been watching the cache for some time, and was waiting for an NA to be logged. This was a very sketchy virtual for some time, in many ways, from what I can see. Sorry for the loss of your virtual, but the good news is...

 

the Four Corners Monument is still there to be visited. The only difference is that you will no longer get a smily for it.

[+Bremar Josrut]

If the CO has been AWOL for some time and this wonderful Virtual Cache is now archived, then there must be some WAY to reassign this cache to an active CO who will be willing to fulfil the requirements of this cache. In this way we don't lose this cache. Just my 2c worth. :-)

Edited July 20, 2011 by Bremar Josrut

[Pup Patrol]

If the CO has been AWOL for some time and this wonderful Virtual Cache is now archived, then there must be some WAY to reassign this cache to an active CO who will be willing to fulfil the requirements of this cache. In this way we don't lose this cache. Just my 2c worth. :-)

 

Don't think so.

 

A.) it's a "virtual"...grandfathered. No new ones allowed.

 

B.) they aren't going to un-archive a "virtual" to adopt it out. It's not a common thing to un-archive any type of cache for the sole purpose of adoption.

 

C.) the CO has to be the one to initiate the adoption procedure. CO hasn't logged into the site for 3 years.

 

This is all covered in the Guidelines and the Knowledge Books.

 

Let it go, move on, it's done.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[Mr.Yuck]

Just a thought... 'Greetings from Germany' might not mean it's been an armchair log... it's just something that they say (more so, I have found, than other non-natively English speaking European nationals). The Dutch do it a lot too. There are a number of local cachea along a long distance footpath that is regularly used by international visitors, and have a few 'Greetings from.....' logs, but they are valid (I regularly check the logs on mine).

 

Now that I think about it, I too (after signing the physical log) left this eLog in a cache in Amsterdam: "3rd cache in Amsterdam, clever hiding place... Took some effort to get it out ! Met some other cachers who were disabled and couldn't reach GZ. Greetings from Scotland. TFTC ! :-)" But, that could quite have easily just have been a shorter log "Greetings from Scotland. TFTC ! :-)" - would you automatically assume that was an armchair log - just because I mention my country of origin ?

 

 

Yeah, it's a non-native English speaking thing, the "Greetings From", so no, Scotland would not raise a red flag for me. I have indeed seen armchair "Greetings from" logs from several different European Countries, now that you mention it, The Netherlands does seem to be the next most common.

 

Like Addisonbr, I too have seen hundreds of legimate online logs that state "Greetings from Germany". This is because I live about 10 miles from Niagara Falls. I do own a cache there, but I'm lucky if I myself have received 4 or 5 Greetings from Germany logs.

[+CanadianRockies]

If the CO has been AWOL for some time and this wonderful Virtual Cache is now archived, then there must be some WAY to reassign this cache to an active CO who will be willing to fulfil the requirements of this cache. In this way we don't lose this cache. Just my 2c worth. :-)

Don't think so.

 

A.) it's a "virtual"...grandfathered. No new ones allowed.

 

B.) they aren't going to un-archive a "virtual" to adopt it out. It's not a common thing to un-archive any type of cache for the sole purpose of adoption.

 

C.) the CO has to be the one to initiate the adoption procedure. CO hasn't logged into the site for 3 years.

D.) Even if the owner was active and the cache hadn't been archived, virtual caches (and other grandfathered caches) cannot be adopted.

[+Ambrosia]

 

What happened next was a small group of cachers who started actively looking for other virtual caches that could be armchair logged. They began to find caches where the cache owner appeared to not actively check the logs on the cache. Many were caches where the owner used a "certificate of accomplishment" that was opened with a password so the owner didn't have to respond to emails at all. These caches were added to bookmark lists as well. In many cases, cache owners got fed up with armchair logs and archived their caches. Many cache owners began to complain to Groundspeak about this practice.

 

There were also a fair amount of early virtuals that didn't even require a verification email/picture.

[+ArmyFanGeo]

 

Because there wasnt a "needs archived" log on those caches?

well considering the only N/A log on this cache was by a reviewer....

To me, the distasteful part of this is the rapid turnaround the NA log received; the next day. So little effort given by the local reviewer to alert the CO to mend their ways and clean up the cache page. Is 24 hours the new standard?

 

That being said, if you're a CO, at least log in every now and then.

 

Absolutely agreed the review outright put the CO to public shame instead of private messaging the CO about the rule regarding this issue. Threatening to archive too in that last disable just made the situation out of hand.

Edited July 21, 2011 by ArmyFanGeo

[+JPatton]

How was the reviewer supposed to contact the missing cache owner? Their profile is showing 'Not Validated Member', that means the email address on file is bouncing the emails. The reviewer could have sent a dozen messages over a couple months and the result would have been the same, no response. Might as well just pull the plug quickly and get it over with.

[knowschad]

Because there wasnt a "needs archived" log on those caches?

well considering the only N/A log on this cache was by a reviewer....

To me, the distasteful part of this is the rapid turnaround the NA log received; the next day. So little effort given by the local reviewer to alert the CO to mend their ways and clean up the cache page. Is 24 hours the new standard?

 

That being said, if you're a CO, at least log in every now and then.

 

Absolutely agreed the review outright put the CO to public shame instead of private messaging the CO about the rule regarding this issue. Threatening to archive too in that last disable just made the situation out of hand.

 

Dude... the cache owner has not been around for several years. The reviewer did nothing to put the cache owner to public shame. IF there is any public shame here (which there isn't, in my opinion) it is that the cache owner was not responding to issues with his cache.

 

Out of hand? OK, that's your opinion.

[+EdrickV]

However, I've heard a theory that when virtual cache was translated into German is came out as virtual caching so that someone might think this means you don't actually visit the cache.

 

The phrase "virtual cache" in German comes out as "virtuellen cache" so that theory is not true. Tried first with Google Translate, then actually looked at a German language site where someone was asking a question about virtual caches and "virtuellen cache" is how it was posted there. (I had actually been looking for something slightly different, the word "cache" alone translates differently in Google Translate then when following "virtual" oddly enough.)

Edited July 21, 2011 by EdrickV

[+Don_J]

 

So what? I really dont see how anything is being singled out. The reviewer noticed something and took care of it.

 

When there are problems with the other caches, and the reviewer is aware they will be delt with.

 

You think too much.

 

The rational the reviewer used to archive the cache in question (the CO had not been on the website) would be true for all the CO's caches. Yet no action was taken on those other caches. The reviewer knows, by their own posting that the CO has not been on the website. So the reviewer knows that the same problem for this cache which causes it to need archiving also is true for all the CO's caches. The reviewer is well aware yet singles out the virtual cache.

 

Caches owned by absentee cache owners do not automatically get archived. Caches that are owned by absentee cache owners and have problems, often time do.

[knowschad]

However, I've heard a theory that when virtual cache was translated into German is came out as virtual caching so that someone might think this means you don't actually visit the cache.

 

The phrase "virtual cache" in German comes out as "virtuellen cache" so that theory is not true. Tried first with Google Translate, then actually looked at a German language site where someone was asking a question about virtual caches and "virtuellen cache" is how it was posted there. (I had actually been looking for something slightly different, the word "cache" alone translates differently in Google Translate then when following "virtual" oddly enough.)

It is indeed rare when Toz cracks a joke, but I really think this was one of those rare moments when you really don't need to take him literally.

[+dfx]

The disabling of caches by reviewers due to mention of business names is being discussed here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=278129

 

As for armchair logging, there's a pinned post in the German speaking section addressing exactly that: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=229768

In essence, it explains that the practice stems from a misunderstanding (virtual cache = virtual visit) and that it's not how it's supposed to be done. But yes, a virtual needs an active owner.

 

I'm more curious about why it was a volunteer reviewer that posted the NA on this virtual and also on a bunch of others.

[+t4e]

 

I don't see any blatant animosity toward virtuals. If anything, I've seen reviewers keep their hands off the virtuals unless an issue is brought to their attention.

 

In this case, a cacher noticed that this cache was receiving armchair logs and that the CO was absent in their duties to police the bogus logs. They filed a NA which got the reviewer involved. Until then, the reviewers had let the virtual stand for 3 1/2 years after the CO disappeared.

 

As for a 4-5 year old cache being disabled because the McDonalds coupon was a FTF prize...Sorry, don't buy that story but would love to know what the GC code is on that cache so we can see for ourselves.

 

and wth did the said cacher (my fingers are itching to call him/her by the name they deserve) give a rat's butt about armchair logs on someone else's cache?...what difference does it make to them unless they are in the virtuals haters crowd?

[+t4e]

 

In one region, a self proclaimed mega event (first time they've hosted this event) is allowed to brake many of the rules (event posted 6+ months ahead of date, very commercial promotion, etc). In our region, we had two events, both organized as part of a local town festival (similar to the self proclaimed mega) and both denied (on the grounds it was promoting the local festival, which it was part of).

 

 

i have a pretty good idea what "self proclaimed mega" you are talking about, which it did actually turn out to be a real MEGA, and a well deserved classification

and in case you don't know

Events are published no more than three months prior. Some events are published six months prior if an overnight stay is expected or if the event is designed to attract a regional or international group of geocachers.

 

the event lasted 3 days and they did a formidable job at organizing everything, you had to be there to make an informed decision

also, i have had the event on my watchlist ever since it was published, it was in fact the decisive factor of where our vacation will be, and i would absolutely love it if you could substantiate your claims of "very commercial promotion" with proof

 

yes, they promoted their event heavily and like no one else i have seen before, but all offsite...never has there been any commercial promotion on the cache page

[+Flintstone5611]

and wth did the said cacher (my fingers are itching to call him/her by the name they deserve) give a rat's butt about armchair logs on someone else's cache?...what difference does it make to them unless they are in the virtuals haters crowd?

 

That is one of my biggest peeves. Some people feel it is some afront to our game that someone gets an illegitimate smiley. I am very confused by how people feel the need to stop others like it is some sin, when in fact the only person that gets cheated is the person that didn't experience the geocache legitimately.

[+Don_J]

Because there wasnt a "needs archived" log on those caches?

well considering the only N/A log on this cache was by a reviewer....

To me, the distasteful part of this is the rapid turnaround the NA log received; the next day. So little effort given by the local reviewer to alert the CO to mend their ways and clean up the cache page. Is 24 hours the new standard?

 

That being said, if you're a CO, at least log in every now and then.

 

Absolutely agreed the review outright put the CO to public shame instead of private messaging the CO about the rule regarding this issue. Threatening to archive too in that last disable just made the situation out of hand.

 

Dude... the cache owner has not been around for several years. The reviewer did nothing to put the cache owner to public shame. IF there is any public shame here (which there isn't, in my opinion) it is that the cache owner was not responding to issues with his cache.

 

Out of hand? OK, that's your opinion.

 

I think they were talking about the cache with the McDonald's issue as their description of events match it, not the virtual.

[+Don_J]

 

Re Mcd FTF coupon. http://www.geocachin...e8-1f6b54be3ee6 I was referring to activity around my community not just this VC specifically.

 

This is troubling our area since one complainer is causing mass disabling of many caches. Follow the topic here. http://forums.Ground...howtopic=278129

 

Again your quarrel should be with the cacher. Groundspeak has rules about what can be in the cache name. They where tightened up over the years, but reviewers are not going out on witch hunts looking for old caches that are not in compliance. However if one is brought to their attention they will take action. The person who is playing tattletale is where your ire should be directed.

 

There are so many ways that that situation could have been handled, including simply telling the troublemaker that no cache sets a precedent for any future cache. Instead the reviewer took almost the most drastic action he could short of archiving. I'll go on record by saying if my reviewer disabled one of my caches without notice, (one that he actually published four years ago), because someone was whining about wording that had been in place for four years, I would lose a great amount of respect for him. On the other hand, if he sent me a friendly note asking me to edit the listing, I would do so almost instantly.

[+t4e]

I'll go on record by saying if my reviewer disabled one of my caches without notice, (one that he actually published four years ago), because someone was whining about wording that had been in place for four years, I would lose a great amount of respect for him. On the other hand, if he sent me a friendly note asking me to edit the listing, I would do so almost instantly.

 

two of my caches that were in place for over two years were disabled for that very reason, the cache description mentioned that the FTF prize was from Tim Hortons, i was going to post the links but interestingly enough now the reviewer deleted the disabled log

[knowschad]

You know, guys... some of these commercial rules may seem very arbitrary and often petty, until you take it to its logical conclusion, where most caches are inexpensive advertising for some store or company. I, for one, am very grateful that geocaching.com has made every effort to avoid that sort of exploitation.

[Mr.Yuck]

You know, guys... some of these commercial rules may seem very arbitrary and often petty, until you take it to its logical conclusion, where most caches are inexpensive advertising for some store or company. I, for one, am very grateful that geocaching.com has made every effort to avoid that sort of exploitation.

 

Has any of this stuff happened anywhere else in the world but in Ontario, Canada? I think not, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm talking to the point where you can't even mention the name of the store that the FTF prize is from in the body of the cache description.

[+t4e]

This is why I would never want to be a reviewer. When they do their job they get yelled at. When they don't do their job they get yelled at.

 

The reviewer was just doing his job and following the rules that have been active since the day virtuals were no longer allowed. They are also being nice by not archiving all the other caches.

 

The McD's one is strange. Maybe some other cacher emailed him a complaint about that, I don't know.

 

really, and how long do you think it will be before the rest of them will be archived given that every single one has a NM icon on it, meanwhile there is no such log in sight

 

You know, guys... some of these commercial rules may seem very arbitrary and often petty, until you take it to its logical conclusion, where most caches are inexpensive advertising for some store or company. I, for one, am very grateful that geocaching.com has made every effort to avoid that sort of exploitation.

 

do you consider mentioning that the FTF prize is a Starbucks coupon to be commercial?

Edited July 23, 2011 by t4e

[+Don_J]

You know, guys... some of these commercial rules may seem very arbitrary and often petty, until you take it to its logical conclusion, where most caches are inexpensive advertising for some store or company. I, for one, am very grateful that geocaching.com has made every effort to avoid that sort of exploitation.

 

Just to be clear, that is not my issue at all. My issue is the way it was handled.

[+Don_J]

You know, guys... some of these commercial rules may seem very arbitrary and often petty, until you take it to its logical conclusion, where most caches are inexpensive advertising for some store or company. I, for one, am very grateful that geocaching.com has made every effort to avoid that sort of exploitation.

 

Has any of this stuff happened anywhere else in the world but in Ontario, Canada? I think not, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm talking to the point where you can't even mention the name of the store that the FTF prize is from in the body of the cache description.

 

Not that I have heard of. In fact, I can't think of anywhere else in the world where virtual caches were archived en-mass because of absentee owners, even though the caches themselves were not problematic. Nor have I heard of any place else in the world where the owners of caches located far in the wilderness were left with reviewer's notes that said they had to physically check them every six months.

[knowschad]

This is why I would never want to be a reviewer. When they do their job they get yelled at. When they don't do their job they get yelled at.

 

The reviewer was just doing his job and following the rules that have been active since the day virtuals were no longer allowed. They are also being nice by not archiving all the other caches.

 

The McD's one is strange. Maybe some other cacher emailed him a complaint about that, I don't know.

 

really, and how long do you think it will be before the rest of them will be archived given that every single one has a NM icon on it, meanwhile there is no such log in sight

 

You know, guys... some of these commercial rules may seem very arbitrary and often petty, until you take it to its logical conclusion, where most caches are inexpensive advertising for some store or company. I, for one, am very grateful that geocaching.com has made every effort to avoid that sort of exploitation.

 

do you consider mentioning that the FTF prize is a Starbucks coupon to be commercial?

 

No. Of course not. Not by itself. But take it to its logical conclusion, where every cache has a "commercial" attached to it. Where cachers are actually paid to hide a cache. Groundspeak is steering way clear of that line, and I think we all need to thank them for that.

[knowschad]

You know, guys... some of these commercial rules may seem very arbitrary and often petty, until you take it to its logical conclusion, where most caches are inexpensive advertising for some store or company. I, for one, am very grateful that geocaching.com has made every effort to avoid that sort of exploitation.

 

Just to be clear, that is not my issue at all. My issue is the way it was handled.

I appreciate the clarification, Don, and I hear you. All I am saying is that I think we need to be grateful that Groundspeak has so far chosen to steer clear of at least that form of commercialization, even if it is sometimes to the point of seeming to be over-reactive.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm glad we're back on topic here! What we have is an example of the inherent inconsistencies of the volunteer reviewer system, and a backlash against the longstanding over interpretation of the guidelines by the Ontario reviewers. Oops, did I just say that out loud?

[+t4e]

You know, guys... some of these commercial rules may seem very arbitrary and often petty, until you take it to its logical conclusion, where most caches are inexpensive advertising for some store or company. I, for one, am very grateful that geocaching.com has made every effort to avoid that sort of exploitation.

 

Has any of this stuff happened anywhere else in the world but in Ontario, Canada? I think not, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm talking to the point where you can't even mention the name of the store that the FTF prize is from in the body of the cache description.

 

Not that I have heard of. In fact, I can't think of anywhere else in the world where virtual caches were archived en-mass because of absentee owners, even though the caches themselves were not problematic. Nor have I heard of any place else in the world where the owners of caches located far in the wilderness were left with reviewer's notes that said they had to physically check them every six months.

 

mr Yuck's comment has nothing to do with virtuals, read again his post, there were no virtuals disabled or archived in Ontario

he's talking about the mass disabling of caches because the descriptions mentioned a FTF coupon for Tim Hortons, or a plain and simple casual mention of some store nearby...same as you would say "parking can be found across the street at Joe's Shoe Store" etc...

 

all discussed in this thread

[Mr.Yuck]

You know, guys... some of these commercial rules may seem very arbitrary and often petty, until you take it to its logical conclusion, where most caches are inexpensive advertising for some store or company. I, for one, am very grateful that geocaching.com has made every effort to avoid that sort of exploitation.

 

Has any of this stuff happened anywhere else in the world but in Ontario, Canada? I think not, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm talking to the point where you can't even mention the name of the store that the FTF prize is from in the body of the cache description.

 

Not that I have heard of. In fact, I can't think of anywhere else in the world where virtual caches were archived en-mass because of absentee owners, even though the caches themselves were not problematic. Nor have I heard of any place else in the world where the owners of caches located far in the wilderness were left with reviewer's notes that said they had to physically check them every six months.

 

mr Yuck's comment has nothing to do with virtuals, read again his post, there were no virtuals disabled or archived in Ontario

he's talking about the mass disabling of caches because the descriptions mentioned a FTF coupon for Tim Hortons, or a plain and simple casual mention of some store nearby...same as you would say "parking can be found across the street at Joe's Shoe Store" etc...

 

all discussed in this thread

 

No, actually Don seems to have an amazing memory of the various controversies in Ontario over the years. There was sort of an Ontario Virtual Cache massacre a few years back (2008 maybe??), something I've never seen nor heard of happening anywhere else in the world.

 

Basically, the whole confusion here is the Original Poster thinking the Four Corners Virtual the American SouthWest was archived for mentioning McDonalds on the cache page, but this kind of thing is only happening in Ontario right now, because the reviewers are forced to act on a complaint from a player.

[+dfx]

Basically, the whole confusion here is the Original Poster thinking the Four Corners Virtual the American SouthWest was archived for mentioning McDonalds on the cache page, but this kind of thing is only happening in Ontario right now, because the reviewers are forced to act on a complaint from a player.

They're not "forced" per se. The complaint was about inconsistency, which in a way is a valid complaint. However, the reaction to that complaint appeared very extreme to everyone affected. It wasn't the only possible reaction, just the one they chose to take.

[Clan Riffster]

Given the guidelines, what other avenues could the Reviewer take? I know I'm not entirely up to speed on this, (just kinda glanced at it every so often), but we are talking about a virtual with no owner to maintain log integrity, right? If that's the case, and logs were coming in that were bogus, the cache needed to be archived, as it was out of compliance with the guidelines, right? Or am I missing something here?

[Mr.Yuck]

Given the guidelines, what other avenues could the Reviewer take? I know I'm not entirely up to speed on this, (just kinda glanced at it every so often), but we are talking about a virtual with no owner to maintain log integrity, right? If that's the case, and logs were coming in that were bogus, the cache needed to be archived, as it was out of compliance with the guidelines, right? Or am I missing something here?

 

Yeah, I think so. The virtual this thread is about was archived because of an absentee owner, while the OP thought it might have been due to the cache page mentioning McDonalds.

[+dfx]

... while the OP thought it might have been due to the cache page mentioning McDonalds.

I don't think so. The cache page doesn't mention McDonald's and never did. There was also no FTF prize in that cache. After all, it's a virtual.

Edited July 23, 2011 by dfx

[Mr.Yuck]

Basically, the whole confusion here is the Original Poster thinking the Four Corners Virtual the American SouthWest was archived for mentioning McDonalds on the cache page, but this kind of thing is only happening in Ontario right now, because the reviewers are forced to act on a complaint from a player.

They're not "forced" per se. The complaint was about inconsistency, which in a way is a valid complaint. However, the reaction to that complaint appeared very extreme to everyone affected. It wasn't the only possible reaction, just the one they chose to take.

 

Well, I'm not from Ontario, so I'm not going into that heated Canada Forum thread. And of course I'm not personally affected like yourself. But I've found 450+ caches there, including 7 last weekend, so I am going to comment.

 

Hmm, a "very extreme" reaction? I dunno, I suppose they could have contacted the cache owners first, but what about all the absentee owners, or waiting several days for even some of the active ones to get back to their email inquiry's? It would certainly have ticked me off if my cache was disabled, this is true. I'll bet they ran this by all the reviewers in the super top secret reviewer only forum, and there was a consensus on the way it went down. Just speculation on my part though.

[+dfx]

Hmm, a "very extreme" reaction? I dunno, I suppose they could have contacted the cache owners first, but what about all the absentee owners, or waiting several days for even some of the active ones to get back to their email inquiry's? It would certainly have ticked me off if my cache was disabled, this is true. I'll bet they ran this by all the reviewers in the super top secret reviewer only forum, and there was a consensus on the way it went down. Just speculation on my part though.

Sorry, I didn't mean that the mass-disabling thing was the "extreme" part. What I meant was that the sudden swing around and re-interpretation of the guidelines and the sudden re-enforcement of the thus (newly) created hard rule was very extreme. The commercial guideline has been in place for a long time, but all of a sudden its interpretation in those cases went from "yeah, that's ok" (published) to "you must not do that" on a large and massive scale. Just because someone whined "why me and not them"?

Edited July 23, 2011 by dfx

[+cx1]

 

Not that I have heard of. In fact, I can't think of anywhere else in the world where virtual caches were archived en-mass because of absentee owners, even though the caches themselves were not problematic.

 

There was a big run of virtual caches archived in the Indiana/Illinois area by non-local reviewer Keystone a few years ago.

The reasons listed were not fulfilling the logging on requirement and not responding to e-mails.

However it was handled a little better then the example in this thread because the CO's were given 30 days to respond to Keystone's inquiries before the archival was done.

But again the traditional caches of the same non-active owners were allowed to rack up N/M logs and cause the usual issues abandoned caches develop.

[+Team Taran]

I am still confused exactly how you expected the reviewer to notify the owner of the Four Corners Virtual. They had not visited the web site in years and there was no valid email address. As far as I know there is no other way for Groundspeak to contact them. I think this was mentioned at least once in this thread but I think it bears repeating. If you have caches listed on Geocaching.com you don't want archived, be sure you have a valid email registered with the site.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Team Taran

[Mr.Yuck]

Hmm, a "very extreme" reaction? I dunno, I suppose they could have contacted the cache owners first, but what about all the absentee owners, or waiting several days for even some of the active ones to get back to their email inquiry's? It would certainly have ticked me off if my cache was disabled, this is true. I'll bet they ran this by all the reviewers in the super top secret reviewer only forum, and there was a consensus on the way it went down. Just speculation on my part though.

Sorry, I didn't mean that the mass-disabling thing was the "extreme" part. What I meant was that the sudden swing around and re-interpretation of the guidelines and the sudden re-enforcement of the thus (newly) created hard rule was very extreme. The commercial guideline has been in place for a long time, but all of a sudden its interpretation in those cases went from "yeah, that's ok" (published) to "you must not do that" on a large and massive scale. Just because someone whined "why me and not them"?

 

OK, sorry, misunderstanding. So in my opinion, the "whiner" wigged out and went over the edge because of the longstanding overzealous interpretation of the commercial section of the guidelines by the Ontario Reviewers. But I already said that. Don't worry CacheDrone, I still love you, man. You overzealous interpreter, you.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Not that I have heard of. In fact, I can't think of anywhere else in the world where virtual caches were archived en-mass because of absentee owners, even though the caches themselves were not problematic.

 

There was a big run of virtual caches archived in the Indiana/Illinois area by non-local reviewer Keystone a few years ago.

The reasons listed were not fulfilling the logging on requirement and not responding to e-mails.

However it was handled a little better then the example in this thread because the CO's were given 30 days to respond to Keystone's inquiries before the archival was done.

But again the traditional caches of the same non-active owners were allowed to rack up N/M logs and cause the usual issues abandoned caches develop.

 

OK, that's pretty much what happened during what I referred to as "The Ontario Virtual Cache Massacre". So myself and Don stand corrected.

[Keystone]

 

Not that I have heard of. In fact, I can't think of anywhere else in the world where virtual caches were archived en-mass because of absentee owners, even though the caches themselves were not problematic.

 

There was a big run of virtual caches archived in the Indiana/Illinois area by non-local reviewer Keystone a few years ago.

The reasons listed were not fulfilling the logging on requirement and not responding to e-mails.

However it was handled a little better then the example in this thread because the CO's were given 30 days to respond to Keystone's inquiries before the archival was done.

But again the traditional caches of the same non-active owners were allowed to rack up N/M logs and cause the usual issues abandoned caches develop.

Since my name was mentioned specifically, I'm writing to clarify the record as follows:

 

1. To DonJ, there have been many other past examples when reviewers have gone through virtual caches to check for inactive owners. I personally engaged in such "sweeps" in many states surrounding the discontinuance of virtuals as a cache type in 2005, and in my own review territory thereafter, and specifically in Indiana. I no longer seek out virtual cache problems affirmatively, but I do respond to problems when they are reported to me.

 

2. To cx1, I have never archived any cache of any type in Illinois. Illinois has a capable team of in-state volunteer reviewers, including one dedicated to post-publication maintenance issues.

 

3. When I acted in Indiana, this was a special assignment authorized by Groundspeak to solve a need existing at that time. Reviewers typically do not act outside their assigned territories without coordinating with the local reviewer and/or Groundspeak. My assignment involved both virtual caches and also physical caches that had been temporarily disabled for more than a few months. Subsequent to that timeframe, Indiana now has a very good group of in-state reviewers that handle these issues, including one dedicated to post-publication maintenance issues.

[+cx1]

 

2. To cx1, I have never archived any cache of any type in Illinois. Illinois has a capable team of in-state volunteer reviewers, including one dedicated to post-publication maintenance issues.

 

I apologize for mis-attributing the Illinois archival issue to Keystone. Their name was prominent in my list of archived virtual caches in the area Indiana/Illinois but I did not specifically check to see if their work was exclusive to only one of the two States I had in my list.

Thank you for the clarification and again I apologize.

I will say that archival notices on the Indiana virtuals were handled much better then on some of the Illinois side.

 

I do agree that Indiana does seem to have a great set of reviewers in place now. And those Illinois folks do ok considering it is Illinois

[+Coldgears]

There were also a fair amount of early virtuals that didn't even require a verification email/picture.

I wouldn't say "early", going by all the virtuals I have found, the oldest one was late February of 2002, and the one cache I found with no requirements was made nearly 8 months later, not really an "early" virtual, considering the newest virtual I found was 07/XX/03. I don't want to give away more details about this cache.

[+Ambrosia]

There were also a fair amount of early virtuals that didn't even require a verification email/picture.

I wouldn't say "early", going by all the virtuals I have found, the oldest one was late February of 2002, and the one cache I found with no requirements was made nearly 8 months later, not really an "early" virtual, considering the newest virtual I found was 07/XX/03. I don't want to give away more details about this cache.

I guess "early" is a relative word when it comes to virtuals, or geocaching for that matter. I've found 16 virts that were placed in 2001. The oldest one is 6/17/2001, and the newest one is 11/1/2004. The last virtual that I created was 5/8/2003, which was after Groundspeak mostly stopped listing virts.

 

So it looks to me that for around two years, the requirements were tightened up, which is what I'm talking about. I don't know when exactly the questions/pictures were required on virts.

 

Eight of the 125 or so virts that I've found don't have verification questions or picture requirements. I don't know how many of the virts that I've found may have added requirements since the virt was placed, however. I'm surprised to see that most of those eight caches are still active, and are still without the requirements.

 

The armchair bookmark(s) listed a lot of these virts that didn't have requirements.

[+Don_J]

 

Not that I have heard of. In fact, I can't think of anywhere else in the world where virtual caches were archived en-mass because of absentee owners, even though the caches themselves were not problematic.

 

There was a big run of virtual caches archived in the Indiana/Illinois area by non-local reviewer Keystone a few years ago.

The reasons listed were not fulfilling the logging on requirement and not responding to e-mails.

However it was handled a little better then the example in this thread because the CO's were given 30 days to respond to Keystone's inquiries before the archival was done.

But again the traditional caches of the same non-active owners were allowed to rack up N/M logs and cause the usual issues abandoned caches develop.

Since my name was mentioned specifically, I'm writing to clarify the record as follows:

 

1. To DonJ, there have been many other past examples when reviewers have gone through virtual caches to check for inactive owners. I personally engaged in such "sweeps" in many states surrounding the discontinuance of virtuals as a cache type in 2005, and in my own review territory thereafter, and specifically in Indiana. I no longer seek out virtual cache problems affirmatively, but I do respond to problems when they are reported to me.

 

2. To cx1, I have never archived any cache of any type in Illinois. Illinois has a capable team of in-state volunteer reviewers, including one dedicated to post-publication maintenance issues.

 

3. When I acted in Indiana, this was a special assignment authorized by Groundspeak to solve a need existing at that time. Reviewers typically do not act outside their assigned territories without coordinating with the local reviewer and/or Groundspeak. My assignment involved both virtual caches and also physical caches that had been temporarily disabled for more than a few months. Subsequent to that timeframe, Indiana now has a very good group of in-state reviewers that handle these issues, including one dedicated to post-publication maintenance issues.

 

The situation that I was referring to happened much later than 2005. In 2005, I was just starting out and I didn't come to the forums until a few years later. I was not even aware of what was going on in 2005. I have no problem with a Groundspeak sanctioned listing cleanup if an area has not been getting the attention that it deserves. In this case, the action was addressing a problem. It's my understanding that when this happened in Canada, there was no such problem.

[Mr.Yuck]

I no longer seek out virtual cache problems affirmatively, but I do respond to problems when they are reported to me.

 

 

As well it should be, and always should have been. But of course there have been "incidents". And these "incidents" occurred in very few places in the world. One word comes to mind, Inconsistency.