Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
thebruce0

GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge

Recommended Posts

so... wondering... what's the status on the alternate "dibs" cache that-is-yet-to-be-published? Is this person even aware that their unpublished cache in "limbo" is blocking the region in which this challenge cache is waiting to be unarchived?

How much longer now until this 'hold' is forfeited?

Share this post


Link to post

so... wondering... what's the status on the alternate "dibs" cache that-is-yet-to-be-published? Is this person even aware that their unpublished cache in "limbo" is blocking the region in which this challenge cache is waiting to be unarchived?

How much longer now until this 'hold' is forfeited?

 

Hmmmm. What would CacheDrone say?

Oh yeah, he already said it:

 

The cache owner of GC33??? has exercised their right to hold the claim of the spot. They can do so indefinitely as long as they respond to any requests made by any reviewer within a timely fashion. Typically that means within one month, give or take. So it is a month to respond, not to use the place they have reserved. If they don't reply, I archive it.

 

When I setup caches for BFL Boot Camp, I can end up marking spots two months in advance sometimes. It really sucks when one spends a month building some sort of contraption to have the location revoked two days before the event, as someone saw fit to toss a film canister there ....

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. Point?

It was more a rhetorical question. Also "how much longer" (from now) is not "how long" (one month from whenever last contact was made).

And it still doesn't lend any hint as to whether this person knows that this cache, here, is ready and waiting to be unarchived.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. Point?

It was more a rhetorical question. Also "how much longer" (from now) is not "how long" (one month from whenever last contact was made).

And it still doesn't lend any hint as to whether this person knows that this cache, here, is ready and waiting to be unarchived.

 

How much longer is one month from the last time the VR asks. That's a floating timeline.

 

As for whether or not the other cache hider knows, really, does that matter?

 

I can just picture it now, next time I go to place a cache, the system automatically alerts me that there are (3) other potential hiders looking at this spot. Would you like to start negotiations with the other hiders, or subject your proposed cache idea to a community jury. Maybe a new reality show "So you think you can cache, Canada" where cachers compete to determine if their cache is worthy to occupy that location.

Share this post


Link to post

Now you're just being facetious :P

gg said he'd be willing to chat with the other person to respectfully decide one way or the other. There's nothing complex about that. one cacher to another. It could be someone who doesn't know and is just placing a simple micro somewhere nearby. They may be more than willing to pass it up if they knew. OTOH, it might be someone with a replacement challenge who doesn't yet know the original is waiting to be unarchived. OTOH, it might be someone with an amazing cache that is taking that (rare) one month to create, and gg might secede. OTOH, it might be someone who knows this situation well and is willingly and purposefully 'trolling' the drama by holding the spot. I'd like to think it's not the latter, and I seriously doubt that it is, but you never know. Well, we don't know. Supposedly, no one but that person and CD even has an idea.

I, for one, would want to know if a placeholder position I had claimed for an idea for a possible future cache at some point was now conflicting with someone who wanted to unarchive an old cache or publish a new one within its vicinity. If I were simply contacted generally by a reviewer about whether I intend to publish there at some point, of course I'd say yes. BUT that might quickly change if I knew that someone right now wanted to put one there. So yes, full disclosure does have a place here...

 

Point: Just asking: Does this person know of the proximity issue and of this cache that is waiting to be unarchived? Does this person know they can chat with gg?

Share this post


Link to post
I can just picture it now, next time I go to place a cache, the system automatically alerts me that there are (3) other potential hiders looking at this spot. Would you like to start negotiations with the other hiders, or subject your proposed cache idea to a community jury. Maybe a new reality show "So you think you can cache, Canada" where cachers compete to determine if their cache is worthy to occupy that location.

 

ooo I'd be all for that! Or at least something to reliably determine who was "first", because right now, there isn't. The only thing that can be determined is who was the first to enable the cache for review, but then those aren't the ones who would get their cache published, the other ones would be.

Share this post


Link to post
I can just picture it now, next time I go to place a cache, the system automatically alerts me that there are (3) other potential hiders looking at this spot. Would you like to start negotiations with the other hiders, or subject your proposed cache idea to a community jury. Maybe a new reality show "So you think you can cache, Canada" where cachers compete to determine if their cache is worthy to occupy that location.

 

ooo I'd be all for that! Or at least something to reliably determine who was "first", because right now, there isn't. The only thing that can be determined is who was the first to enable the cache for review, but then those aren't the ones who would get their cache published, the other ones would be.

 

The GC code is a pretty good indicator who started first. Lower GC code = earlier start date. Yes there are exceptions but with the 80/20 rule generally an earlier GC code is the first. The other 20% can be handled by the reviewers. Problem with leaving a black and white system like "Earlier GC code except archived caches, which reset to date of archive" is you get into grey areas --- and we spend all our energy debating which shade of grey to use for what situation. The current system will avoid cacher vs cacher ambiguitiy in most cases vs letting two CO's duke it out over who was there first.

Share this post


Link to post

 

ooo I'd be all for that! Or at least something to reliably determine who was "first", because right now, there isn't. The only thing that can be determined is who was the first to enable the cache for review, but then those aren't the ones who would get their cache published, the other ones would be.

 

 

I would imagine Groundspeak's data base software time stamps every thing created in it. That would definitively indicate who created a cache listing using which coordinates earlier. Request for publishing is not relevant.

 

Do you have some reason to not trust the reviewer's comments as to who was first??

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
The GC code is a pretty good indicator who started first. Lower GC code = earlier start date. Yes there are exceptions but with the 80/20 rule generally an earlier GC code is the first. The other 20% can be handled by the reviewers.

 

We don't even know that the GC code is taken into account at all. As far as I'm concerned, it can't be used as a determination factor at all, as it's too easy to abuse. People who are aware of it would then always get priority in case of a conflict. Maybe that's the 20% you've mentioned. I those cases, I don't see how a reviewer can make that determination, unless there's some additional hidden information somewhere, like a secret history of coordinate changes for each listing that they have access to.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I, for one, would want to know if a placeholder position I had claimed for an idea for a possible future cache at some point was now conflicting with someone who wanted to unarchive an old cache or publish a new one within its vicinity. If I were simply contacted generally by a reviewer about whether I intend to publish there at some point, of course I'd say yes. BUT that might quickly change if I knew that someone right now wanted to put one there. So yes, full disclosure does have a place here...

 

 

But you'd want to be able to say "no, I want that spot" without having to worry the other potential cacher would want to confront you directly. I am all for the system of using the reviewers as a proxy to mediate location disputes/conflicts. Sometimes it's a simple "sure go ahead those were just dummy coords" and other times there are cachers who will defend the location like Smaug on his gold pile.

 

Having the reviewer in between helps keep that discussion civil.

 

Edit: Typo

Edited by northernpenguin

Share this post


Link to post

*creates 50 dummy GC placeholders in prime unoccupied local geocache realestate*

Share this post


Link to post
The GC code is a pretty good indicator who started first. Lower GC code = earlier start date. Yes there are exceptions but with the 80/20 rule generally an earlier GC code is the first. The other 20% can be handled by the reviewers.

 

We don't even know that the GC code is taken into account at all. As far as I'm concerned, it can't be used as a determination factor at all, as it's too easy to abuse. People who are aware of it would then always get priority in case of a conflict. Maybe that's the 20% you've mentioned. I those cases, I don't see how a reviewer can make that determination, unless there's some additional hidden information somewhere, like a secret history of coordinate changes for each listing that they have access to.

 

The reviewers have all the co-ordinate changes, and in fact all changes including publish listing date, available to them. Logs get archived, not deleted. Even reviewer logs. GC code is a factor, yes. If you pull out an old GC # that's been inactive for 12 months, make an edit and claim dibs the reviewer will certainly know.

 

Edit. Publish was wrong word. Should have used "listing date".

Edited by northernpenguin

Share this post


Link to post
The reviewers have all the co-ordinate changes, and in fact all changes including publish listing date, available to them. Logs get archived, not deleted. Even reviewer logs. GC code is a factor, yes. If you pull out an old GC # that's been inactive for 12 months, make an edit and claim dibs the reviewer will certainly know.

 

Edit. Pubish was wrong word. Should have used "listing date".

 

And that's what I'd like to hear from a reviewer. :P

I know logs don't get deleted, but from personal experience I'd say that reviewers don't see deleted archived logs. Plus, pre-publication coordinate changes don't apparently generate logs. So, judging from that set of information, it looks like "A wants to publish, B is in the way, A has to wait until B responds" is the only course of action with nothing else usually taken into account. But like I said, I'd be glad to be corrected.

Edited by dfx

Share this post


Link to post
But you'd want to be able to say "no, I want that spot" without having to worry the other potential cacher would want to confront you directly. I am all for the system of using the reviewers as a proxy to mediate location disputes/conflicts. Sometimes it's a simple "sure go ahead those were just dummr coords" and other times there are cachers who will defend the location like Smaug on his gold pile.

 

Having the reviewer in between helps keep that discussion civil.

First, why would the moderator care whether two cachers battle it out? They're not the cache police, and who knows whether that's happening elsewhere anyway. (cue "spoiler" blogging thread)

Second, I'm all for the reviewer being a moderator between two cachers. No problem with that.

Third, what dfx was saying - "first dibs" is a shady measurement. It's either GC code (abusable) or first to put up for review (not always the first there or one to be published). So why withhold one other cacher's identity from the other if they're willing to discuss and come to an agreement? (key: "if" one cacher says please provide my info/name so I can discuss with the other person)

IMO, the "first dibs" thing is a final line that is defined by Groundspeak so that if it does come to one or the other, the reviewer can say cacher B claimed first and has rights to the area.

Until then, why not let the diplomatic process move forward, with both/all parties in the know if desired, and who, according to Groundspeak, has 'first dibs' if an agreement can't be reached? Beyond that, the reviewer doesn't have to care - they know who has rights to the spot if no agreement is reached.

 

Like I said, if I had unpublished placeholders set up for cache ideas in the future, and someone else were to attempt publishing near one but denied because of some unknown cacher's placeholder (mine), if I were simply asked if I had plans to publish the cache at the placeholder, I'd say "yes"; but if I knew someone else wanted to publish there, I might well give it up for them. If I really wanted to keep it, I may well accept an offer from the other person to chat and come to an agreement one way or another.

It's not complex at all...

(this, of course, not knowing whether CD is "withholding" gg's identity from the other cacher, or if the other cacher does know the situation -- precisely the point, we don't know, so I'm not accusing CD in the slightest; it would just be nice to know if this other cacher is informed of the proximity conflict rather than just having provided their general intentions for the placeholder

 

ETA: This is a personal preference, not something I'm stating has to be done or written in stone by Groundspeak. It just seems like a common sense thing one would do when moderating a proximity conflict such as this. The line exists (first dibs) so err on the side of respectable cachers, let both know there's a proximity issue, and give them the opportunity to decide between themselves if they wish. 'First dibs' has no obligation to discuss if they don't want to. But at least they'll be aware

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

 

ooo I'd be all for that! Or at least something to reliably determine who was "first", because right now, there isn't. The only thing that can be determined is who was the first to enable the cache for review, but then those aren't the ones who would get their cache published, the other ones would be.

 

 

I would imagine Groundspeak's data base software time stamps every thing created in it. That would definitively indicate who created a cache listing using which coordinates earlier. Request for publishing is not relevant.

 

Do you have some reason to not trust the reviewer's comments as to who was first??

 

.

 

has nothing to do with trust, my problem with this system is that someone sits on a spot for a month, does nothing in most cases, i come along and submit a cache for review...i.e. i went out, found the spot, placed my container only to be told that the spot is reserved by someone else that has done nothing all the time since reserving it and yet they get one more month to decide, the extension would be fine if the spot has been reserved in the last 2 weeks

 

that is like me standing on an empty parking spot holding it until my husband, who is still at home, comes come with the car

 

what i want to see is if you had the spot for more than 2 weeks and done nothing with it the person that submits the cache for review gets it

Share this post


Link to post

 

ooo I'd be all for that! Or at least something to reliably determine who was "first", because right now, there isn't. The only thing that can be determined is who was the first to enable the cache for review, but then those aren't the ones who would get their cache published, the other ones would be.

 

 

I would imagine Groundspeak's data base software time stamps every thing created in it. That would definitively indicate who created a cache listing using which coordinates earlier. Request for publishing is not relevant.

 

Do you have some reason to not trust the reviewer's comments as to who was first??

 

.

 

has nothing to do with trust, my problem with this system is that someone sits on a spot for a month, does nothing in most cases, i come along and submit a cache for review...i.e. i went out, found the spot, placed my container only to be told that the spot is reserved by someone else that has done nothing all the time since reserving it and yet they get one more month to decide, the extension would be fine if the spot has been reserved in the last 2 weeks

 

that is like me standing on an empty parking spot holding it until my husband, who is still at home, comes come with the car

 

what i want to see is if you had the spot for more than 2 weeks and done nothing with it the person that submits the cache for review gets it

 

That is not what dfx stated in his comment.

 

It sure is amazing how the rash actions of one individual can cause so much angst among so many.

 

Sure wish Dr. House would finish with my Seinfeld box set.

Share this post


Link to post
It sure is amazing how the rash actions of one individual can cause so much angst among so many.

Public discussion forums, go figger.

It's nice when people get along. That is, discuss differing opinions rationally, intelligently, and with the hope of a positive outcome in some manner.

 

At least there's no #OccupyGroundspeak

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

ooo I'd be all for that! Or at least something to reliably determine who was "first", because right now, there isn't. The only thing that can be determined is who was the first to enable the cache for review, but then those aren't the ones who would get their cache published, the other ones would be.

 

 

I would imagine Groundspeak's data base software time stamps every thing created in it. That would definitively indicate who created a cache listing using which coordinates earlier. Request for publishing is not relevant.

 

Do you have some reason to not trust the reviewer's comments as to who was first??

 

Ah yes, but I do. The reason being that, as far as I know, the reviewers themselves don't know and can't know who was actually first. The reviewers would simply act (as is the case so many times) upon what they were told to do by Groundspeak in such cases: contact the owner of the unpublished listing and give them the chance to get it published first. Which, in many cases, would be the right thing to do, but as we can see not in all cases.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Ah yes, but I do. The reason being that, as far as I know, the reviewers themselves don't know and can't know who was actually first. The reviewers would simply act (as is the case so many times) upon what they were told to do by Groundspeak in such cases: contact the owner of the unpublished listing and give them the chance to get it published first. Which, in many cases, would be the right thing to do, but as we can see not in all cases.

 

A simple check of the database will show, via time stamps, who created a listing when. Based on my personal experience in the past, reviewers have access to that database. I have been contacted by reviewers and asked to free up a space. So there is no reason to question any reviewer's integrity as to who did what first.

 

As for your last sentence, if you are referring to the cache in this topic, the reviewer is doing the right thing. The CO gave up all claims to that location when they archived their cache. We don't know, nor do we have a right to know, that the new cacher didn't create a listing 5 minutes after GC280PA was archived and is totally oblivious to the soap opera that ensued. In fact, it is entirely feasible that the new cacher created their listing before GC280PA was archived, in the hopes of placing a cache there one day, should GC280PA be archived.

 

If you don't agree with that process, then I suggest you avail yourself of the Feedback system with a suggestion that Groundspeak alter the procedures to prevent the "reserving" of spaces.

Share this post


Link to post
A simple check of the database will show, via time stamps, who created a listing when. Based on my personal experience in the past, reviewers have access to that database. I have been contacted by reviewers and asked to free up a space. So there is no reason to question any reviewer's integrity as to who did what first.

Nobody's questioning any reviewer's integrity. :rolleyes: It's a simple matter of what they know and don't know, and what the procedure given to them looks like. The age of the listing doesn't matter (the GC code can in fact be used to determine the age of the listing), what matters is when each listing has been put on the coordinates that it's on when the conflict is being looked at. And I don't think that information is available anywhere.

 

If you don't agree with that process, then I suggest you avail yourself of the Feedback system with a suggestion that Groundspeak alter the procedures to prevent the "reserving" of spaces.

I will once (if) I know for sure what the procedure is and what information is available.

 

edit to add a highly necessary smiley

Edited by dfx

Share this post


Link to post
A simple check of the database will show, via time stamps, who created a listing when. Based on my personal experience in the past, reviewers have access to that database. I have been contacted by reviewers and asked to free up a space. So there is no reason to question any reviewer's integrity as to who did what first.

Nobody's questioning any reviewer's integrity. It's a simple matter of what they know and don't know, and what the procedure given to them looks like. The age of the listing doesn't matter (the GC code can in fact be used to determine the age of the listing), what matters is when each listing has been put on the coordinates that it's on when the conflict is being looked at. And I don't think that information is available anywhere.

 

 

If I read your comment correctly, you are implying that no record is kept of a listing owner changing the coordinates associated with that listing. I cannot imagine a database that would allow a user (not a DBA) to alter a record without some sort of audit trail.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
We don't know, nor do we have a right to know, that...

And this is precisely why I - while realizing there's no grounds to demand we know - am emoting my opinion here and trying to explain my case about the hope that this 'unknown' cacher is at least informed of the proximity conflict, or better has been given a heads up that gg would like to chat about the location. This to me would be common sense in a situation such as this, with the understanding that one party does still have final say with the claim of 'first dibs' (by whatever definition Groundspeak adheres).

 

What I hope is not the case is that either 1) the 'unknown' cacher has not been made aware of the situation (beyond having simply been asked if they intend to use their reserved spot in the future), or 2) the 'unknown' cacher is fully aware and is purposefully holding the spot in limbo. With there being only a slim chance of #2, at best, my hope is simply that in this moderation process, that unknown cacher is aware that another cache is waiting to be unarchived if they choose not to publish theirs, and can make an informed decision

-- because I would if I were them. Seriously. I would not want one of my cache placeholders to be stopping someone from publishing, or unarchiving, if it's one I'd be willing to move, alter, or simply delete (or, if I did want to keep it, to keep the other party in limbo not knowing or being able to do anything with theirs until mine is published).

Share this post


Link to post
A simple check of the database will show, via time stamps, who created a listing when. Based on my personal experience in the past, reviewers have access to that database. I have been contacted by reviewers and asked to free up a space. So there is no reason to question any reviewer's integrity as to who did what first.

Nobody's questioning any reviewer's integrity. It's a simple matter of what they know and don't know, and what the procedure given to them looks like. The age of the listing doesn't matter (the GC code can in fact be used to determine the age of the listing), what matters is when each listing has been put on the coordinates that it's on when the conflict is being looked at. And I don't think that information is available anywhere.

 

 

If I read your comment correctly, you are implying that no record is kept of a listing owner changing the coordinates associated with that listing. I cannot imagine a database that would allow a user (not a DBA) to alter a record without some sort of audit trail.

 

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I don't know, do you? And if there is, maybe the information is only hidden somewhere in the depths of the DB and not visible to the reviewers. I don't know, do you?

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
A simple check of the database will show, via time stamps, who created a listing when. Based on my personal experience in the past, reviewers have access to that database. I have been contacted by reviewers and asked to free up a space. So there is no reason to question any reviewer's integrity as to who did what first.

Nobody's questioning any reviewer's integrity. It's a simple matter of what they know and don't know, and what the procedure given to them looks like. The age of the listing doesn't matter (the GC code can in fact be used to determine the age of the listing), what matters is when each listing has been put on the coordinates that it's on when the conflict is being looked at. And I don't think that information is available anywhere.

 

If you don't agree with that process, then I suggest you avail yourself of the Feedback system with a suggestion that Groundspeak alter the procedures to prevent the "reserving" of spaces.

I will once (if) I know for sure what the procedure is and what information is available.

 

I am going to point out that the parties that need to know what is going on, know what is going on:

 

- The reviewer has been in contact with the original CO, who archived prematurely, and wants a re-listing.

- The reviewer has been in touch with the new CO that wants to place a cache where Ironman once stood.

- The new CO has requested a hold on the spot, which the reviewer obliged.

- The original CO re-list is "on hold" pending the outcome of that hold request.

 

Blocking that process would drop cache quality in Ontario pretty quick as it's a lot easier to get from location marked to in the review for published queue with a throw down micro, than it is to plan out a great multi, puzzle, Wherigo type caches. If we get to that state I'll probably just take up another hobby.

 

The reviewer has popped in here for non-identifying status updates (which the reviewer does not need to do). 99% of us hashing this out in a forum thread don't know what level the communication is at, as frankly we have no stake in that discussion unless we're also planning to place a cache in that spot. Our stake in the discussion is whether or not we can go out and log the cache(s) and which GC codes we may or may not earn a smiley for.

 

The first dibs thing is a convenience thing the reviewers provide, for cachers who want some time to setup a higher quality cache. Sure, if we heat up the forums enough, we can get that quashed and then it's back to quantity over quality caches as it reverts more to the race-to-publish as opposed to the take some time to put something nice together.

 

For the earlier comments about just letting the cache owners work it out themselves I wish that we were all civilized cachers but the reality is there are people who can't work it out effectively. I know cachers who left alone in the same room for too long would probably beat each other to bits. I've experienced first hand what happens when someone decides they want your spot no matter what. I've had to pull a long standing cache because I couldn't keep up with the muggling, and the CO who wrote to say "your cache sucks, can I have your spot" listed a new one within an hour of our archiving our cache. There are jerks who geocache, and the reviewers help insulate some of that from spoiling the game.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I don't know, do you? And if there is, maybe the information is only hidden somewhere in the depths of the DB and not visible to the reviewers. I don't know, do you?

 

 

Bottom of the cache page shows the last edit time. They also have the other edit times in the database so even if they can't see the details of the edit, they can certainly see if you suddenly edit a listing you've sat on for three years then claimed first dibs on a spot.

 

In other words, the reviewers do have the ability to smell a rat.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I don't know, do you? And if there is, maybe the information is only hidden somewhere in the depths of the DB and not visible to the reviewers. I don't know, do you?

 

 

Bottom of the cache page shows the last edit time. They also have the other edit times in the database so even if they can't see the details of the edit, they can certainly see if you suddenly edit a listing you've sat on for three years then claimed first dibs on a spot.

 

In other words, the reviewers do have the ability to smell a rat.

 

You mean the "last updated" time? That's not the edit time. Even if they have a full list of edit times, those say nothing. A precise history of when the listing was at which coordinates would be required.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me be clear. Again.

I don't care about first dibs. I don't care who has first dibs.

In this context, all I care about, all I hope, is that gg's offer to discuss with the unknown cacher has been passed on - that the unknown cacher is aware of the situation and can make an informed decision. That is all.

No politics. No reviewer condemnation. No asking for revelations of who's involved, or who said what and when. No petitioning for a new review process or guidelines.

Just a simple, common sense, hope. Does the unknown cacher know that their placeholder, at which they intend at some point in the future to place a cache, is in proximity of another cache that is ready now for unarchiving?

And, this is not a one-sided, one-time opinion. Speaking first hand, I would want to be informed of that very thing were I the unknown cacher. In any case.

That's all.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I don't know, do you? And if there is, maybe the information is only hidden somewhere in the depths of the DB and not visible to the reviewers. I don't know, do you?

 

 

Bottom of the cache page shows the last edit time. They also have the other edit times in the database so even if they can't see the details of the edit, they can certainly see if you suddenly edit a listing you've sat on for three years then claimed first dibs on a spot.

 

In other words, the reviewers do have the ability to smell a rat.

 

You mean the "last updated" time? That's not the edit time. Even if they have a full list of edit times, those say nothing. A precise history of when the listing was at which coordinates would be required.

 

Yes to be 100% accurate.

But if the full list of edits are: 3 years ago, 3 years ago less a day, 3 years ago less two days, yesterday. I suspect there would be some sense of strangeness here.

Remember - human being reviewer, not automated process.

 

Again, we can certainly kill off this process by raising a [redacted]-storm and in the end we'll have far more traditionals to find and we'll all be happier for that, right? right?

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I don't know, do you? And if there is, maybe the information is only hidden somewhere in the depths of the DB and not visible to the reviewers. I don't know, do you?

 

 

Bottom of the cache page shows the last edit time. They also have the other edit times in the database so even if they can't see the details of the edit, they can certainly see if you suddenly edit a listing you've sat on for three years then claimed first dibs on a spot.

 

In other words, the reviewers do have the ability to smell a rat.

 

You mean the "last updated" time? That's not the edit time. Even if they have a full list of edit times, those say nothing. A precise history of when the listing was at which coordinates would be required.

 

My understanding is you work in the IT industry.

 

Do you honestly believe that Groundspeak is using a database software that does not maintain a complete transaction record of every time a record is changed and what is changed in that record?

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
My understanding is you work in the IT industry.

 

Do you honestly believe that Groundspeak is using a database software that does not maintain a complete transaction record of every time a record is changed and what is changed in that record?

I believe what he's questioning is how much of that information is available to the reviewer. I don't doubt, for one, that info is in the database - but also being in IT and a web app developer, I'd also doubt the reviewers have full, raw access to the database tables.

I would presume data is made available via the reviewer interface, and so, does their database interface present them detailed audit logs of the listing tables, or just limited (but more extensive) relevant info about the listings, or...?

(but this is not the topic for which I'm commenting in this thread; just chiming in)

Share this post


Link to post
My understanding is you work in the IT industry.

 

Do you honestly believe that Groundspeak is using a database software that does not maintain a complete transaction record of every time a record is changed and what is changed in that record?

I believe what he's questioning is how much of that information is available to the reviewer. I don't doubt, for one, that info is in the database - but also being in IT and a web app developer, I'd also doubt the reviewers have full, raw access to the database tables.

I would presume data is made available via the reviewer interface, and so, does their database interface present them detailed audit logs of the listing tables, or just limited (but more extensive) relevant info about the listings, or...?

(but this is not the topic for which I'm commenting in this thread; just chiming in)

 

What he said. Especially since I'm basing my assumption on my (limited) experience with such conflicts, one of which strongly suggests that no such detailed history is available or at least is not being considered. But yeah, all this is really not relevant to the cache this is all about. More interesting there is the debate about the ability to hold a spot indefinitely without ever actually placing a cache there, which I also find highly questionable.

Share this post


Link to post

 

ooo I'd be all for that! Or at least something to reliably determine who was "first", because right now, there isn't. The only thing that can be determined is who was the first to enable the cache for review, but then those aren't the ones who would get their cache published, the other ones would be.

 

 

I would imagine Groundspeak's data base software time stamps every thing created in it. That would definitively indicate who created a cache listing using which coordinates earlier. Request for publishing is not relevant.

 

Do you have some reason to not trust the reviewer's comments as to who was first??

 

.

 

has nothing to do with trust, my problem with this system is that someone sits on a spot for a month, does nothing in most cases, i come along and submit a cache for review...i.e. i went out, found the spot, placed my container only to be told that the spot is reserved by someone else that has done nothing all the time since reserving it and yet they get one more month to decide, the extension would be fine if the spot has been reserved in the last 2 weeks

 

that is like me standing on an empty parking spot holding it until my husband, who is still at home, comes come with the car

 

what i want to see is if you had the spot for more than 2 weeks and done nothing with it the person that submits the cache for review gets it

 

That is not what dfx stated in his comment.

 

It sure is amazing how the rash actions of one individual can cause so much angst among so many.

 

Sure wish Dr. House would finish with my Seinfeld box set.

 

i am speaking for myself only, expressing my opinion only, if that is OK with everyone

 

i'm not sure what rush actions that caused angst you are are referring to, i did get a rash though :anibad:

 

 

If you don't agree with that process, then I suggest you avail yourself of the Feedback system with a suggestion that Groundspeak alter the procedures to prevent the "reserving" of spaces.

 

Feedback System is long gone

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

i'm not sure what rush actions that caused angst you are are referring to, i did get a rash though :anibad:

 

 

 

It wasn't a 'rush' action. It was a 'rash' action. And it should be painfully obvious. If the CO hadn't archived the cache in a fit of anger, none of this would have happened.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

i'm not sure what rush actions that caused angst you are are referring to, i did get a rash though :anibad:

 

 

 

It wasn't a 'rush' action. It was a 'rash' action. And it should be painfully obvious. If the CO hadn't archived the cache in a fit of anger, none of this would have happened.

 

.

 

whatever it is, we're all itching to find out what is going on

 

anyway, the angst (i really hate this word for some reason)will be way more amplified if whomever is holding that place has no idea about the whole story...

 

i have expressed the same concern way before thebruce raised it today but there was no official reply, except from Dr.House, whom i suspect should have been busy finishing the Seinfeld dvd's, or is that vhs, to pass them back to you :laughing:

 

i sure hope the current owner of GC33??? is aware of the whole story :anibad:

 

I'm sure they are. B)

 

hmmm i guess there is a chance we might see some new socks around :tongue:

 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post

so... wondering... what's the status on the alternate "dibs" cache that-is-yet-to-be-published? Is this person even aware that their unpublished cache in "limbo" is blocking the region in which this challenge cache is waiting to be unarchived?

How much longer now until this 'hold' is forfeited?

 

I am quite certain that this person is aware of this non-issue. I am equally certain that they will choose to hold "The Spot" in perpetuity by submitting their listing or not submitting their listing. Since there's nothing you can do to overrule their hold on "The Spot" (as was mentioned before in this thread by myself and CacheDrone, among others) my suggestion would be to come up with a new spot for gg's Challenge Cache.

 

I think it's great you're fighting for this cause since it's something you really seem to believe in, but this spot is not going to become available again for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
I am quite certain that this person is aware of this non-issue. I am equally certain that they will choose to hold "The Spot" in perpetuity by submitting their listing or not submitting their listing.

In that case, if this person actually has no intention of publishing, then this person is, pardon my french, a complete a**.

If their intention for publishing is in any part a nose up to this situation, they are, in my opinion, less of, but still the above.

If they actually have an amazing cache, and they respectfully at least are willing to let gg know, I'll personally have a greater respect for them.

Honestly, being ignorant of the fact that this is clearly not a non-issue, is trolling.

I respect respect.

I do hope they are making an informed and respectable decision. And no, I am not of the mind that anything BUT this cache unarchival is unsatisfactory.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Sure wish Dr. House would finish with my Seinfeld box set.

 

Sorry for keeping these so long on you, but I got stuck on

which may actually hold the key to solving this land claim dispute.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Sure wish Dr. House would finish with my Seinfeld box set.

 

Sorry for keeping these so long on you, but I got stuck on

which may actually hold the key to solving this land claim dispute.

 

If you played that episode so many times that the DVD has a "skip" in it, I will hunt you down and break your cane. :)

 

As for the previous comments, I think the wrong participant is being labelled an a**. This whole thing could have been avoided if the CO hadn't rashly archived the cache.

 

Perhaps everyone should just chalk this up to a lesson learned, and move on.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
This whole thing could have been avoided if the CO hadn't rashly archived the cache.

 

Sure, but that's history, and a previous 'debate' on how it was handled, officially.

It's a different situation now; different solution, different predicament, different ethical disagreement. Not a matter of bad guidelines or rules, just one opinion against another. It seems everyone's made their case. So constantly returning to effectively say "your opinion is stupid" is not helping anything. And I don't think anyone would disagree that reserving a spot out of spite is being an a**.

Share this post


Link to post
This whole thing could have been avoided if the CO hadn't rashly archived the cache.

 

Sure, but that's history, and a previous 'debate' on how it was handled, officially.

It's a different situation now; different solution, different predicament, different ethical disagreement. Not a matter of bad guidelines or rules, just one opinion against another. It seems everyone's made their case. So constantly returning to effectively say "your opinion is stupid" is not helping anything. And I don't think anyone would disagree that reserving a spot out of spite is being an a**.

 

Where does it say it was reserved out of spite?????

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me re-iterate, since no one is being called that...

In that case' date=' [b']if this person[/b] actually has no intention of publishing, then this person is, pardon my french, a complete a**.

In response to...

I am equally certain that they will choose to hold "The Spot" in perpetuity by submitting their listing or not submitting their listing.

I'm not even sure what the last part means' date=' except that Dr. House implied that he knows who the mystery cacher is, and knows that that cacher knows about this issue. He's implying that the person effectively doesn't care and nothing will change their mind. What we don't know is the real reason this person supposedly wants to keep this spot. So, once again, [i']if the reason[/i], knowing this issue, is in any way of the sentiment "well doesn't that suck, eh?" then in my opinion the person is acting like a jerk, whether they plan to publish in the near future, or not (especially if not). If the reason is good - for example a high quality cache, or (to some degree) a replacement cache, or if they opt to chat with gg (since obviously they know the issue and thus likely this thread, I don't see why they would not explain the situation to gg if they were respectable) then I wouldn't say they're being a jerk. it's just an unfortunate circumstance leading to the publish of their cache.

I qualified my opinion. Please don't take my words out of context.

 

I hope no one is being an a**. I hope our geocaching community is respectable and understanding.

The way I see it, there is a cache, now, that is ready to be unarchived and kept active, now, which by official guidelines no longer has "dibs" on its spot. I would hope that whoever does now have "dibs" would take up the offer to respectably discuss, or at least explain, the situation to the owner of that cache that is sitting in waiting -- presuming of course that the intentions of everyone involved are good and respectable.

Share this post


Link to post

To be transparent with the process, here is the timeline of the events as they happened.

 

GC280PA was archived by the cache owner on 08/23/2011

There were no other unpublished caches in the area at that time

 

Someone created GC33??? on 09/06/2011

This effectively reserved the spot as a "work in progress"

 

GC35D21 was created by the same cache owner as GC280PA as a replacement on 10/05/2011

They were told that someone else had already started working on a cache here, and I would contact them to see if they would release the spot. I also told them that I would rather unarchive GC280PA instead of publishing the new listing, but that could only happen if the cache owner of GC33??? was willing to release the spot.

 

The cache owner of GC33??? has exercised their right to hold the claim of the spot. They can do so indefinitely as long as they respond to any requests made by any reviewer within a timely fashion. Typically that means within one month, give or take. So it is a month to respond, not to use the place they have reserved. If they don't reply, I archive it.

 

In the past I may have told people who they should speak with, but I no longer do that. However one exception is that we will still direct one cache owner to another when they are BOTH submitting caches with a future publish date for the same event. As an example, "Hey Dr. House, you should talk to Northern Penguin about GC47ABT for BFL 11 because you are both placing containers in the same 50m area."

 

This quoted post answered all of the relevant factors.

 

There is a "reviewer note" created on every listing when it is created and any time the coordinates are changed. The date of that log cannot be changed (or reviewers see the original) so it is fair to say that we KNOW when someone is gaming the system. For example, let's say some random cacher... I dunno... The Blue Quasar, made up 100 dummy listings and used his house as the coordinates for each of them. He could NOT bump someone out of a spot simply by changing the coordinates of one of those 2 year old GC CODES.

 

If you want to reserve a spot because you are in the process of constructing a puzzle, physical or logical or both, then the best solution is to ENABLE the cache for review and ask if the location is available. This should only be done if you are actively working towards publication. As reviewers we do have a table that tells us how to approach these situations and I will use that if people appear to be acting in a way that is contrary to cache publication. I would rather trust that Ontario geocachers are fair and courteous.

 

When situations like this, or kinda like this, arise I always tell the person already reserving the spot that someone else is looking to place a cache in the nearby area but cannot because this cache has the area reserved. Then I ask if they are still actively working towards publication or are willing to release the area for the new cache to be published. I do not need to give any more detail than that. All listings are treated equally since the subjective quality has no bearing on publication.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so is it safe to deduce then, that:

1) the unknown cacher is aware that gg wishes to unarchive his cache but is unable to because their unpublished listing has now reserved the location, but they have chosen to hold the spot regardless, for whatever reason they may have

2) they have not been told that gg is willing to discuss the situation with them to come to an agreement one way or another

3) we don't know if the unknown cacher knows of the lengthy history of the archived cache issue (or this thread)

4) at some point in the very near future the unknown cacher will be asked again if they intend to publish their cache at any point in the future, and if they respond then they'll have another month until this step is repeated; if not, or there is no reply, then the unlisted cache will be archived and gg's can be unarchived

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so is it safe to deduce then, that:

1) the unknown cacher is aware that gg wishes to unarchive his cache but is unable to because their unpublished listing has now reserved the location, but they have chosen to hold the spot regardless, for whatever reason they may have

2) they have not been told that gg is willing to discuss the situation with them to come to an agreement one way or another

3) we don't know if the unknown cacher knows of the lengthy history of the archived cache issue (or this thread)

4) at some point in the very near future the unknown cacher will be asked again if they intend to publish their cache at any point in the future, and if they respond then they'll have another month until this step is repeated; if not, or there is no reply, then the unlisted cache will be archived and gg's can be unarchived

 

Yup.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

4) at some point in the very near future the unknown cacher will be asked again if they intend to publish their cache at any point in the future, and if they respond then they'll have another month until this step is repeated; if not, or there is no reply, then the unlisted cache will be archived and gg's can be unarchived

 

This perhaps assumes that there is only one listing overlapping that spot. Not sure how that would be handled.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×