Double Standard?

[PoppSucket]

For obvious reasons, my identity has been changed to protect the innocent.

 

Where I'm from, the state I mean, and not the state of mind I'm in, there are a few (5-ish) caches that have been disabled for several years (6 or 7). Ostensibly, to hold the cache site as they are in nature preserves where caching has not been allowed, but negotiations are theoretically occurring with the land owners to permit caching.

 

My question is: Why are these not Archived? Yes, they are older, and historic, but they CAN'T be found, because the containers were removed long ago. Would not the un-Archiving process apply here, when, if, the land owners allow caching again?

 

These caches are all owned by reviewers.

 

I'm not permitted to do this (Keep a cache in a disabled state for years).

 

Why the double standard? Or is there a 1% here too?

 

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[+Totem Clan]

Right out of the sock drawer and into the threads.

[PoppSucket]

Yup. Pushed the underwear aside and leaped out. Old, ratty, tube sock with a hole in the heel and that annoying lump of extra cloth near your baby toe.

[jholly]

Since caches can't be placed in the area what difference does it make? Do you know for a fact that if you had a cache there and you made it inactive that the reviewers would come down on you? And if caches were allowed in the area and these caches were there for years would you be advocating that they should be archived to allow others to place caches? A post by an admitted sock puppet really can't be taken that seriously. It is more like sand fleas.

Edited April 20, 2012 by jholly

[+The A-Team]

Where I'm from, the state I mean, and not the state of mind I'm in, there are a few (5-ish) caches that have been disabled for several years (6 or 7). Ostensibly, to hold the cache site as they are in nature preserves where caching has not been allowed, but negotiations are theoretically occurring with the land owners to permit caching.

I've heard of reviewers creating unpublished listings to act as warnings to other reviewers about no-go zones, but I've never heard of them being published. I guess having them visible to everyone helps prevent people from even trying to place a cache there. As far as calling it a double standard, I don't see it that way. I see it more like part of the reviewer's tools. Did these caches ever physically exist, and were they found? That would change things in my eyes. Can you give us an example?

[PoppSucket]

Where I'm from, the state I mean, and not the state of mind I'm in, there are a few (5-ish) caches that have been disabled for several years (6 or 7). Ostensibly, to hold the cache site as they are in nature preserves where caching has not been allowed, but negotiations are theoretically occurring with the land owners to permit caching.

I've heard of reviewers creating unpublished listings to act as warnings to other reviewers about no-go zones, but I've never heard of them being published. I guess having them visible to everyone helps prevent people from even trying to place a cache there. As far as calling it a double standard, I don't see it that way. I see it more like part of the reviewer's tools. Did these caches ever physically exist, and were they found? That would change things in my eyes. Can you give us an example?

 

Yes, they existed at one time. The land owner allowed geocaching, but for one reason or another decided it wasn't a good practice for their land or their goals and banned geocaching inside their land boundaries. All caches were physically removed, some, although removed, were simply disabled and have remained that way since.

 

I advocate nothing in my OP. I ask why there is an apparent double standard (Caches disabled for such a long period are typically Archived except in these cases, all owned by reviewers).

 

What you infer is your own business.

[+St.Matthew]

Why the double standard? Or is there a 1% here too?

 

Please keep YOUR politics out of geocaching.

[4wheelin_fool]

Perhaps the listings serve as beacons for new cachers to observe and take notice that no caches are currently permitted there. Otherwise the reviewers would be striking down new hides in those forbidden areas all the time. Some caches would never get removed and contain travelers, plus there would be the usual temper tantrums and people creating sock puppets to argue their side..

[jholly]

Where I'm from, the state I mean, and not the state of mind I'm in, there are a few (5-ish) caches that have been disabled for several years (6 or 7). Ostensibly, to hold the cache site as they are in nature preserves where caching has not been allowed, but negotiations are theoretically occurring with the land owners to permit caching.

I've heard of reviewers creating unpublished listings to act as warnings to other reviewers about no-go zones, but I've never heard of them being published. I guess having them visible to everyone helps prevent people from even trying to place a cache there. As far as calling it a double standard, I don't see it that way. I see it more like part of the reviewer's tools. Did these caches ever physically exist, and were they found? That would change things in my eyes. Can you give us an example?

 

Yes, they existed at one time. The land owner allowed geocaching, but for one reason or another decided it wasn't a good practice for their land or their goals and banned geocaching inside their land boundaries. All caches were physically removed, some, although removed, were simply disabled and have remained that way since.

 

I advocate nothing in my OP. I ask why there is an apparent double standard (Caches disabled for such a long period are typically Archived except in these cases, all owned by reviewers).

 

What you infer is your own business.

I fail to see the point of this post. Archived or not you still can't put a cache there. So what difference does it make? There is clearly an agenda with your post, you obviously have a beef with a reviewer and your simply trying to stir up trouble for them. It would be interesting to hear all of the story.

[PoppSucket]

Why the double standard? Or is there a 1% here too?

 

Please keep YOUR politics out of geocaching.

 

Agreed. I'd ask the same of YOUR religious beliefs, but that would be rude.

[PoppSucket]

Where I'm from, the state I mean, and not the state of mind I'm in, there are a few (5-ish) caches that have been disabled for several years (6 or 7). Ostensibly, to hold the cache site as they are in nature preserves where caching has not been allowed, but negotiations are theoretically occurring with the land owners to permit caching.

I've heard of reviewers creating unpublished listings to act as warnings to other reviewers about no-go zones, but I've never heard of them being published. I guess having them visible to everyone helps prevent people from even trying to place a cache there. As far as calling it a double standard, I don't see it that way. I see it more like part of the reviewer's tools. Did these caches ever physically exist, and were they found? That would change things in my eyes. Can you give us an example?

 

Yes, they existed at one time. The land owner allowed geocaching, but for one reason or another decided it wasn't a good practice for their land or their goals and banned geocaching inside their land boundaries. All caches were physically removed, some, although removed, were simply disabled and have remained that way since.

 

I advocate nothing in my OP. I ask why there is an apparent double standard (Caches disabled for such a long period are typically Archived except in these cases, all owned by reviewers).

 

What you infer is your own business.

I fail to see the point of this post. Archived or not you still can't put a cache there. So what difference does it make? There is clearly an agenda with your post, you obviously have a beef with a reviewer and your simply trying to stir up trouble for them. It would be interesting to hear all of the story.

 

jholly,

 

My point is that I would like to understand the apparent double standard. I have no beef with any reviewer and none have any with me. I live close to these caches and they show up in my searches regularly. (Yes, I can ignore them). I'm simply interested in an explanation of why these particular caches have been accorded a different treatment than others.

 

That is all.

[+DragonsWest]

I'm not seeing anything worth getting my knickers in a twist over on a Friday.

 

Please call back on Monday.

[+GeoBain]

These caches are all owned by reviewers.

 

No need to use a sock for this discussion. They probably know who you are by now via your ip address.

 

You can use the contact @ geocaching.com and ask TPTB to look into it if you think there is some kind of favoritism occurring.

[Pup Patrol]

My point is that I would like to understand the apparent double standard. I have no beef with any reviewer and none have any with me. I live close to these caches and they show up in my searches regularly. (Yes, I can ignore them). I'm simply interested in an explanation of why these particular caches have been accorded a different treatment than others.

 

That is all.

 

So ask one of those reviewers. Or Groundspeak.

 

 

B.

[PoppSucket]

My point is that I would like to understand the apparent double standard. I have no beef with any reviewer and none have any with me. I live close to these caches and they show up in my searches regularly. (Yes, I can ignore them). I'm simply interested in an explanation of why these particular caches have been accorded a different treatment than others.

 

That is all.

 

So ask one of those reviewers. Or Groundspeak.

 

 

B.

 

I do not particularly want to bring this to the mother ships attention. I figured the collective hive here would have encountered this topic before and would be easily able to explain the duality. Thanks for focusing on the question.

[4wheelin_fool]

Perhaps the listings serve as beacons for new cachers to observe and take notice that no caches are currently permitted there. Otherwise the reviewers would be striking down new hides in those forbidden areas all the time. Some caches would never get removed and contain travelers, plus there would be the usual temper tantrums and people creating sock puppets to argue their side..

[+ArcherDragoon]

My point is that I would like to understand the apparent double standard. I have no beef with any reviewer and none have any with me. I live close to these caches and they show up in my searches regularly. (Yes, I can ignore them). I'm simply interested in an explanation of why these particular caches have been accorded a different treatment than others.

 

That is all.

 

So ask one of those reviewers. Or Groundspeak.

 

 

B.

 

I do not particularly want to bring this to the mother ships attention. I figured the collective hive here would have encountered this topic before and would be easily able to explain the duality. Thanks for focusing on the question.

So, you want something done about it...but don't want Groundspeak involved...yep, seems like you thought this plan out to the end...

 

Oh...by the way...you will notice I used my actual account...

[+ArcherDragoon]

Perhaps the listings serve as beacons for new cachers to observe and take notice that no caches are currently permitted there. Otherwise the reviewers would be striking down new hides in those forbidden areas all the time. Some caches would never get removed and contain travelers, plus there would be the usual temper tantrums and people creating sock puppets to argue their side..

Seems like a reasonable purpose for the listings...

.

.

.

..to the OP...since you went to the trouble of using a sock...why not message the local reviewers with your sock and ask them...

[4wheelin_fool]

Sock Puppets are against the Forum guidelines:

 

4. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.Groundspeak also reserves the right to administer physical beatings, and/or public humiliation using rabid hamsters, goat cheese, and unspecified devices.

 

You are risking being banned for this silly question?

 

Why are reviewers allowed to have disabled caches in forbidden areas, and we aren't?

 

Do you really want to own a disabled cache in a forbidden area? And why?

Edited April 20, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[jholly]

Where I'm from, the state I mean, and not the state of mind I'm in, there are a few (5-ish) caches that have been disabled for several years (6 or 7). Ostensibly, to hold the cache site as they are in nature preserves where caching has not been allowed, but negotiations are theoretically occurring with the land owners to permit caching.

I've heard of reviewers creating unpublished listings to act as warnings to other reviewers about no-go zones, but I've never heard of them being published. I guess having them visible to everyone helps prevent people from even trying to place a cache there. As far as calling it a double standard, I don't see it that way. I see it more like part of the reviewer's tools. Did these caches ever physically exist, and were they found? That would change things in my eyes. Can you give us an example?

 

Yes, they existed at one time. The land owner allowed geocaching, but for one reason or another decided it wasn't a good practice for their land or their goals and banned geocaching inside their land boundaries. All caches were physically removed, some, although removed, were simply disabled and have remained that way since.

 

I advocate nothing in my OP. I ask why there is an apparent double standard (Caches disabled for such a long period are typically Archived except in these cases, all owned by reviewers).

 

What you infer is your own business.

I fail to see the point of this post. Archived or not you still can't put a cache there. So what difference does it make? There is clearly an agenda with your post, you obviously have a beef with a reviewer and your simply trying to stir up trouble for them. It would be interesting to hear all of the story.

 

jholly,

 

My point is that I would like to understand the apparent double standard. I have no beef with any reviewer and none have any with me. I live close to these caches and they show up in my searches regularly. (Yes, I can ignore them). I'm simply interested in an explanation of why these particular caches have been accorded a different treatment than others.

 

That is all.

 

So ask the reviewers concerned. Ask TPTB. Asking here is really not the place to get the answers. Regardless of what you say, I still think you have a beef and your trying to bring a little heat to the situation. As always with these type of posts there is a lot that is not said and if it were things would not look good for the OP. Like I said, if they are archived or not it still is the same situation, you can't put a cache there so why try to cause trouble over these caches? Do these same reviewers have disabled caches where caches can be placed? Have these caches been disabled for years? And what does the disable log say? You best course of action is to ignore these caches, move on and forget them. I also admit that when an obvious and admitted sock puppet posts this type of OP the only thing I can think is they have a beef and really want to make life difficult for the reviewers. Why else would you hide behind the sock puppet account? In the end they only make life difficult for themselves.

[Mr.Yuck]

These caches are all owned by reviewers.

 

No need to use a sock for this discussion. They probably know who you are by now via your ip address.

 

You can use the contact @ geocaching.com and ask TPTB to look into it if you think there is some kind of favoritism occurring.

 

I can tell you for a fact Groundspeak has used "IP forensics" to identify sock puppets, both in these forums, and in geo-drama disputes on cache pages. Unless you're like an Internet super troll who specializes in hiding any identifying IP info, which I doubt you are. I agree with the contact @ geocaching.com method. And I also think 4 Wheelin' Fool may be on to something with the listings sitting there disabled for years in an attempt to let people know they can't place caches there.

[PoppSucket]

Sock Puppets are against the Forum guidelines:

 

4. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.Groundspeak also reserves the right to administer physical beatings, and/or public humiliation using rabid hamsters, goat cheese, and unspecified devices.

 

You are risking being banned for this silly question?

 

Why are reviewers allowed to have disabled caches in forbidden areas, and we aren't?

 

Do you really want to own a disabled cache in a forbidden area? And why?

 

Yes, I was aware of all that. Based on the reaction to simple question that I consider quite valid, I believe the risk was warranted to keep my anonymity.

 

I'll let Groundspeak judge my actions against the UA. I do not believe I have acted in a manner in which that clause is intended to be enforced and if I have, I'll accept the consequences.

[+J the Goat]

Throw me into the camp that thinks the caches may still be there to dissuade people from trying to place caches on said land. It makes sense, but that's only from the outside. Best bet is asking said reviewers. Is there a reason you choose not to take that route? I get not going to the lilypad with this, and that's fine. I'm not clear on a reason to avoid asking the reviewers directly though.

[+The A-Team]

I do not particularly want to bring this to the mother ships attention.

Umm, you do realize you just posted this question on the "mother ship's" forums, right? You have now brought it to their attention.

 

5. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock-puppet account is created and used by a person who already has a primary account, for the purpose of posting anonymously. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted, and both the sock-puppet and primary accounts may be suspended from the Groundspeak sites. Please use your real, primary account for posting in the Groundspeak forums.

 

I do not believe I have acted in a manner in which that clause is intended to be enforced and if I have, I'll accept the consequences.

That guideline seems pretty clear to me. I'm not sure how you're interpreting it, but I interpret it as saying "Sock puppet accounts are not permitted."

 

Anyway, if you have no beef with the reviewer, and they have no beef with you, why not stand up and ask your question under your actual account, or just ask the reviewer? I'd have no problem doing so. I think the only reason you're getting some negative reactions here is because you posted using a sock puppet, which implies some alterior motive.

[PoppSucket]

Throw me into the camp that thinks the caches may still be there to dissuade people from trying to place caches on said land. It makes sense, but that's only from the outside. Best bet is asking said reviewers. Is there a reason you choose not to take that route? I get not going to the lilypad with this, and that's fine. I'm not clear on a reason to avoid asking the reviewers directly though.

 

Thanks J.

 

For the same reason that I chose to be anonymous in the OP, I'd like not to inadvertantly ruffle the feathers of the reviewers, with whom I have a good rapport.

 

As jholly has pointed out, a simple question may incorrectly interpreted as having an agenda.

 

I am also not fool enough to not recognize that the question, by it's very nature, will put the receiver in a defensive posture. I was hoping to avoid that and still understand why these caches are treated specially.

 

Ce'st la vie. Thank you to those of you that posted helpful advice and postulations.

[PoppSucket]

That guideline seems pretty clear to me. I'm not sure how you're interpreting it, but I interpret it as saying "Sock puppet accounts are not permitted."

 

Sorry, I was referring to the bolded section in 4 wheels post. I interpret the the first sentence in exactly the same fashion as you do and expect this account to be disabled.

[+The A-Team]

As jholly has pointed out, a simple question may incorrectly interpreted as having an agenda.

It depends on how you word the question.

"Hey [Reviewer name]

I've noticed you have some disabled caches in areas that don't allow geocaching. Are these there to alert new cachers to the fact that this area doesn't allow geocaching? If so, that's a good idea! I guess it would be pretty annoying to constantly have to reject caches submitted for these areas (not to mention the geo-litter that would be left).

Just wondering

[Your real first name]

[Your geocaching name]"

 

If you have a good rapport with the reviewer, why do you think they would incorrectly interpret your question?

[+niraD]

So ask one of those reviewers. Or Groundspeak.

But it's so much more fun to stir up uninformed speculation in the forums...

 

IME, reviewers let you leave a cache disabled as long as you need/want to leave it disabled, provided you keep them informed of the ongoing situation. Maybe, just maybe, the local reviewers are informed of the ongoing situation. Stranger things have happened.

 

This seems like a non-issue to me. But that's just my uninformed speculation.

[PoppSucket]

IME, reviewers let you leave a cache disabled as long as you need/want to leave it disabled, provided you keep them informed of the ongoing situation.

 

I did not know this. Extended disabling is OK as long as the CO is keeping the reviewer informed?

[+The A-Team]

IME, reviewers let you leave a cache disabled as long as you need/want to leave it disabled, provided you keep them informed of the ongoing situation.

 

I did not know this. Extended disabling is OK as long as the CO is keeping the reviewer informed?

From the Help Center article Temporarily Disable and Enable:

A listing which is disabled for an extended period may be archived by a reviewer, unless there is some explanation on the listing. If you decide not to replace a missing cache, please archive the listing.

To address the last line of that quote, you said in your OP that "negotiations are theoretically occurring with the land owners to permit caching", which would imply that the cache may still be replaced.

[+JesandTodd]

Perhaps the listings serve as beacons for new cachers to observe and take notice that no caches are currently permitted there. Otherwise the reviewers would be striking down new hides in those forbidden areas all the time. Some caches would never get removed and contain travelers, plus there would be the usual temper tantrums and people creating sock puppets to argue their side..

 

This seems like a perfectly valid reason.

[PoppSucket]

IME, reviewers let you leave a cache disabled as long as you need/want to leave it disabled, provided you keep them informed of the ongoing situation.

 

I did not know this. Extended disabling is OK as long as the CO is keeping the reviewer informed?

From the Help Center article Temporarily Disable and Enable:

A listing which is disabled for an extended period may be archived by a reviewer, unless there is some explanation on the listing. If you decide not to replace a missing cache, please archive the listing.

To address the last line of that quote, you said in your OP that "negotiations are theoretically occurring with the land owners to permit caching", which would imply that the cache may still be replaced.

 

OK, but from the same article further up.....

 

This is meant to be temporary, which means a few weeks or perhaps a couple of months.

 

I read that first which is really the source of my question. I can accept that IRL the reviewers keep any active (explaining) CO's disabled caches in a disabled state ad-infinitum if that is the practice. I just haven't experienced it anywhere other than in these examples.

 

Thanks for the clarifiction A-Team.

Edited April 20, 2012 by PoppSucket

[+uxorious]

Why the double standard? Or is there a 1% here too?

 

Please keep YOUR politics out of geocaching.

 

That quote shows the OP is one of the crowd that feels someone is getting unfair treatment. Instead of working for what he wants, he wants to be handed whatever he wants. Seems his politics are the reason for his post.

[+niraD]

IME, reviewers let you leave a cache disabled as long as you need/want to leave it disabled, provided you keep them informed of the ongoing situation.

I did not know this. Extended disabling is OK as long as the CO is keeping the reviewer informed?

I had a cache disabled for several months. It was originally intended to be a couple months for construction, but then came construction delays, more construction delays, still more construction delays, and the need to build completely different camouflage because something changed on-site that I was told would not change. When I forgot to post updates, the reviewer posted a form letter that referred to the "a few weeks" clause in the guidelines, but that also told me to post a note if I was still planning to repair the cache, so he wouldn't archive it.

[Skippermark]

These caches are all owned by reviewers.

 

No need to use a sock for this discussion. They probably know who you are by now via your ip address.

 

You can use the contact @ geocaching.com and ask TPTB to look into it if you think there is some kind of favoritism occurring.

Exactly, there's nothing wrong with your question and no need to hide behind a sock puppet account.

 

Is the cache owner the same person who published the caches? Is the reviewer who published the caches 7 years ago still the reviewer in the area? There would be nothing wrong if you contacted the cache owner or the reviewer and asked what's going on. I'm probably just as curious as everyone else now to know what's going on.

 

You could also post a Should Be Archived. Reviewers automatically get notified when an SBA is posted to a cache, and if the current reviewer isn't aware of them, the SBA will bring them to their attention. There have been caches in my area that were disabled for long periods of time, and sometimes they slip past reviewers. In those cases, the reviewers actually appreciate it if a fellow cacher either emails them or posts an SBA on the cache so it's brought back to their attention.

I do not particularly want to bring this to the mother ships attention. I figured the collective hive here would have encountered this topic before and would be easily able to explain the duality. Thanks for focusing on the question.

That's kind of too late, especially with the account name you chose and announced that it's a sock puppet account. Again, there is nothing wrong with asking questions and wanting to know what's going on. If there's a legitimate reason, the owner or reviewer will tell you.

[+Michaelcycle]

For obvious reasons, my identity has been changed to protect the innocent.

 

Where I'm from, the state I mean, and not the state of mind I'm in, there are a few (5-ish) caches that have been disabled for several years (6 or 7). Ostensibly, to hold the cache site as they are in nature preserves where caching has not been allowed, but negotiations are theoretically occurring with the land owners to permit caching.

 

My question is: Why are these not Archived? Yes, they are older, and historic, but they CAN'T be found, because the containers were removed long ago. Would not the un-Archiving process apply here, when, if, the land owners allow caching again?

 

These caches are all owned by reviewers.

 

I'm not permitted to do this (Keep a cache in a disabled state for years).

 

Why the double standard? Or is there a 1% here too?

 

Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

I am aware of a cache that has been disabled and the physical box removed for several years. The action was taken by the CO in response to the develpoment of White Nose Syndrome. Notes have been placed on the cache page over the years indicating that the problem persists with the hope that it will resolve. I think this is an excellent idea. No one should be placing a cache in these caves until this disease abates or there is solid scientific evidence that humans are not contributing to the problem. This disabled cache listing may be the only way that potential cache hiders learn about the situation.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I do not particularly want to bring this to the mother ships attention.

Umm, you do realize you just posted this question on the "mother ship's" forums, right? You have now brought it to their attention.

 

5. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock-puppet account is created and used by a person who already has a primary account, for the purpose of posting anonymously. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted, and both the sock-puppet and primary accounts may be suspended from the Groundspeak sites. Please use your real, primary account for posting in the Groundspeak forums.

 

I do not believe I have acted in a manner in which that clause is intended to be enforced and if I have, I'll accept the consequences.

That guideline seems pretty clear to me. I'm not sure how you're interpreting it, but I interpret it as saying "Sock puppet accounts are not permitted."

 

My interpretation is that the guidelines are also using a rather broad definition of "sock puppet". In other forums where I've seen the term used (well before I heard it being used in the Groundspeak forums) the creation of an anonymous account by a person who already has a primarily account does not, by itself, make it a sock puppet. It's what's done with that account that makes it a sock puppet. The distinction that I make is that an anonymous account becomes a sock puppet one they start using it to support, often with the intention to be disruptive, an argument they may have made using their primary account. I also would characterized an anonymous account as a sock puppet if it is used to act as a shill for some commercial product or entity that the person with a primary account owns or holds an a beneficial interest.

[Skippermark]

After thinking about it for a bit, I've decided to close the thread because there's really nothing we can do to answer the OP's question. No matter what we say, it'll just be guessing and possible suggestions. Ultimately, the only ones who can answer it are the cache owner, the reviewer and possibly Groundspeak.