Helpful Fellow Cacher or Wannabe Reviewer?

[fendmar]

Just to keep things in perspective...

 

one

two

three

four

 

Others have been deleted.

There is nothing wrong with asking a reviewer to check in on a situation like this. It's the nuisance self-appointed reviewer notes I object to.

 

Nuisance how?

 

Cacher X has a cache which needs attention. If someone is going to ask cacher X to attend to the cache, what does it matter if that request comes from a reviewer or a member of the local community?

 

What harm does it actually do for cacher Y to post a note asking for the cache to be fixed, rather than a Needs Maintenance log - asking for the cache to be fixed, followed by a Needs Archived log when it doesn't get fixed? Answer - none whatsoever.

 

It's a far greater nuisance for the poor reviewer having to waste valuable time cleanimg up the mess left behind by irresponsible community members if you ask me.

 

Given that the goal is the same whoever steps in - clean house / take out the trash / try to ensure a pleasant and enjoyable caching experience for all, I'd say the greater nuisance by far isn't people who politely and proactively seek to assist in the attainment of that goal - but those who whinge and moan about them doing so. It's the whinger's goal that's a mystery to me. Surely their goal can't amount to stop complaining about the junk or trying to get it fixed - let's leave it out there for people to find!' Can it?

 

*fixed a typo

Just to be clear, you aren't suggesting the caches I listed (Reposted at the top of this reply.) are junk/trash left behind by irresponsible community members that need to be cleaned up. (Well maybe the GS troop one. )

 

My goal, since you seemed curious, is to hopefully stop seeing the babies thrown out with the bath water. To me that's at least as noble a cause as the helpful fellow cachers.

[+Touchstone]

So I'm gonna put you in the Helpful Fellow Cacher column!

 

I'll wear it like a badge of honor

 

I do feel a bit sorry for Mr. Well-Intentioned and all the hub-bub surrounding his Nomination on the Latitude site. He obviously has a little fan club in the area, and is no doubt a great guy in person, but it just goes to prove one of the first rules of the internet:

 

When you're holding a conversation online -- whether it's an email exchange or a response to a discussion group posting -- it's easy to misinterpret your correspondent's meaning.

 

Threads like this just reinforce my impression that less is more, and why many of the NA log entries I see are either blank or merely a period posted. anything beyond that, just seems to be viewed as fodder for Forum threads.

[+Team Microdot]

Just to be clear, you aren't suggesting the caches I listed (Reposted at the top of this reply.) are junk/trash left behind by irresponsible community members that need to be cleaned up. (Well maybe the GS troop one. )

 

Are you asking or telling?

 

Reading through the logs I would say all the caches on that list are in need of CO attention.

[+J Grouchy]

three

 

Looks to me he's not even reading the reason behind the disabling of the cache. If the area itself is inaccessible because of construction, he's out of line for making that comment there. If he plans to be a self-appointed reviewer and monitor, he at least needs to put in the work of looking at the cache logs to see what the issue might be.

[4wheelin_fool]

three

 

Looks to me he's not even reading the reason behind the disabling of the cache. If the area itself is inaccessible because of construction, he's out of line for making that comment there. If he plans to be a self-appointed reviewer and monitor, he at least needs to put in the work of looking at the cache logs to see what the issue might be.

 

He posted a note after it had been disabled for 3 months, and the owner responded with a new update on the status. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

[+J Grouchy]

three

 

Looks to me he's not even reading the reason behind the disabling of the cache. If the area itself is inaccessible because of construction, he's out of line for making that comment there. If he plans to be a self-appointed reviewer and monitor, he at least needs to put in the work of looking at the cache logs to see what the issue might be.

 

He posted a note after it had been disabled for 3 months, and the owner responded with a new update on the status. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

 

With his boilerplate comment about archiving. Not asking about the progress of construction, but talking about fixing a cache that, by all indications, is in fine condition...just not currently accessible. No NM logs at all. He obviously is just working of a PQ list and copy/pasting his note into every cache disabled for 30 days or more. So like I said, he's not really looking at the reasons. What if he posted a NM or NA log to every cache with two or more DNFs in a row?

 

He's just coming off to me as a busybody who isn't really interested in the circumstances.

[4wheelin_fool]

He obviously is just working of a PQ list and copy/pasting his note into every cache disabled for 30 days or more.

 

No, he's waiting until they have been disabled for 3 months.

 

Here is his quote:

 

Politely asking the CO to take a look at them (with a NOTE) 3 months after they disabled them should not be offensive to any reasonable CO, IMO. However, some folks see what they want to see, as we all know. The truth is it is just a game, but if you place a cache, you are responsible to maintain it in a timely manner or post an occasional note so other cachers will understand the reason it is still disabled

Edited May 23, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm not sensing any type of negative attitude from him, rather it's the other way around.

 

A different style note

 

This particular example I believe (for better or for worse) prompted the CO to archive their remaining caches.

 

So the cache had DNFs for 4 years without finds, and was obviously on private property, being an abandoned house in an active cornfield, and the CO gets so offended at a mere inquiry, that he archives all his hides? He had 4 years to check on it, and to ascertain that there was adequate permission, but instead threw a temper tantrum.

 

Stuff like this happens all too frequently. Someone who is planning a visit to another area, far from their home, looks at a few local cache pages and notices that they have been wet piles of pulp without lids for several years. They post NAs, but then the locals jump all over them for not living in the area. It really doesn't matter if a 9 year old in Venezuela, an extraterrestrial, or a Lackey posted it, this doesn't change the fact that the caches have obviously existed as wet piles of pulp without lids for several years. Its much more of a busybody activity to delve into someone's profile and find out where they are from, rather than address the issue. When I see something like this, I suspect that the locals have gently bullied their peers into keeping quiet, and when an outsider acts it throws the entire process into disarray.

[+J Grouchy]

He obviously is just working of a PQ list and copy/pasting his note into every cache disabled for 30 days or more.

 

No, he's waiting until they have been disabled for 3 months.

 

 

 

Wrong.

 

Per the four examples previously given:

http://coord.info/GC1JG9Q (disabled exactly one month)

http://coord.info/GC4BN59 (disabled 4/6/14)

 

Not going to go through every one of his, but it's clear to me he's just running a search for any cache disabled 30+ days. He may not run that search every day, which is why the dates aren't always exactly 30 days following the disabling of the cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

He obviously is just working of a PQ list and copy/pasting his note into every cache disabled for 30 days or more.

 

No, he's waiting until they have been disabled for 3 months.

 

Wrong.

 

Per the four examples previously given:

http://coord.info/GC1JG9Q (disabled exactly one month)

http://coord.info/GC4BN59 (disabled 4/6/14)

 

Not going to go through every one of his, but it's clear to me he's just running a search for any cache disabled 30+ days. He may not run that search every day, which is why the dates aren't always exactly 30 days following the disabling of the cache.

 

That makes it seem worse, but its still not much different than what our local reviewer posts every 30 days. The difference is that his notes are able to be ignored and deleted. Some people would rather have a prod from another cacher than a reviewer anyhow.

[fendmar]

I'm not sensing any type of negative attitude from him, rather it's the other way around.

 

A different style note

 

This particular example I believe (for better or for worse) prompted the CO to archive their remaining caches.

 

So the cache had DNFs for 4 years without finds, and was obviously on private property, being an abandoned house in an active cornfield, and the CO gets so offended at a mere inquiry, that he archives all his hides? He had 4 years to check on it, and to ascertain that there was adequate permission, but instead threw a temper tantrum.

 

Stuff like this happens all too frequently. Someone who is planning a visit to another area, far from their home, looks at a few local cache pages and notices that they have been wet piles of pulp without lids for several years. They post NAs, but then the locals jump all over them for not living in the area. It really doesn't matter if a 9 year old in Venezuela, an extraterrestrial, or a Lackey posted it, this doesn't change the fact that the caches have obviously existed as wet piles of pulp without lids for several years. Its much more of a busybody activity to delve into someone's profile and find out where they are from, rather than address the issue. When I see something like this, I suspect that the locals have gently bullied their peers into keeping quiet, and when an outsider acts it throws the entire process into disarray.

As far as the first part, I am not seeing enough evidence on the page to indicate the cache isn't there. One actual DNF doesn't mean it's gone.

 

As for the rest, Venezuelan ET's!!! :blink: :huh:

[fendmar]

He obviously is just working of a PQ list and copy/pasting his note into every cache disabled for 30 days or more.

 

No, he's waiting until they have been disabled for 3 months.

 

Wrong.

 

Per the four examples previously given:

http://coord.info/GC1JG9Q (disabled exactly one month)

http://coord.info/GC4BN59 (disabled 4/6/14)

 

Not going to go through every one of his, but it's clear to me he's just running a search for any cache disabled 30+ days. He may not run that search every day, which is why the dates aren't always exactly 30 days following the disabling of the cache.

 

That makes it seem worse, but its still not much different than what our local reviewer posts every 30 days. The difference is that his notes are able to be ignored and deleted. Some people would rather have a prod from another cacher than a reviewer anyhow.

Again, in my experience the area reviewer is already doing this faithfully and reliably, I am not sure why we have to have this redundancy.

 

edit: spieling

Edited May 23, 2014 by fendmar

[4wheelin_fool]

He obviously is just working of a PQ list and copy/pasting his note into every cache disabled for 30 days or more.

 

No, he's waiting until they have been disabled for 3 months.

 

Wrong.

 

Per the four examples previously given:

http://coord.info/GC1JG9Q (disabled exactly one month)

http://coord.info/GC4BN59 (disabled 4/6/14)

 

Not going to go through every one of his, but it's clear to me he's just running a search for any cache disabled 30+ days. He may not run that search every day, which is why the dates aren't always exactly 30 days following the disabling of the cache.

 

That makes it seem worse, but its still not much different than what our local reviewer posts every 30 days. The difference is that his notes are able to be ignored and deleted. Some people would rather have a prod from another cacher than a reviewer anyhow.

Again, in my experience the area reviewer is already doing this faithfully and reliably, I am not sure why we have to have this redundancy.

 

edit: spieling

 

Well I was under the impression that he was waiting 90 days. I'll concede that what he's doing is excessive and intrusive due to the copy and paste spam.

[+Team Microdot]

Checked through the logs on the four caches referred to earlier:

 

1. Muggled 2 March, wet and in need of attention since. Note 14 May

2. Log wet and mouldy 25 March, disabled 6 April. Note 14th May

3. Disabled 15th Feb. Note 14th May

4. DNF since 19 April 2013. Disabled 10 Jan 2014. Note 14th May

 

If the note poster was supposedly operating on a three month window, #1, #2 were premature - but the caches were in need of attention.

 

#4 simply deserved an NA log.

[+fizzymagic]

Checked through the logs on the four caches referred to earlier:

 

1. Muggled 2 March, wet and in need of attention since. Note 14 May

2. Log wet and mouldy 25 March, disabled 6 April. Note 14th May

3. Disabled 15th Feb. Note 14th May

4. DNF since 19 April 2013. Disabled 10 Jan 2014. Note 14th May

 

If the note poster was supposedly operating on a three month window, #1, #2 were premature - but the caches were in need of attention.

 

#4 simply deserved an NA log.

 

It does NOT matter whether the caches needed attention or not. What he is doing is rude and, in my opinion, inappropriate.

 

The truthfulness of his posts is not at issue here; what he is doing is very, very, very rude.

[+Team Microdot]

The truthfulness of his posts is not at issue here; what he is doing is very, very, very rude.

 

In YOUR opinion.

[fendmar]

Checked through the logs on the four caches referred to earlier:

 

1. Muggled 2 March, wet and in need of attention since. Note 14 May

2. Log wet and mouldy 25 March, disabled 6 April. Note 14th May

3. Disabled 15th Feb. Note 14th May

4. DNF since 19 April 2013. Disabled 10 Jan 2014. Note 14th May

 

If the note poster was supposedly operating on a three month window, #1, #2 were premature - but the caches were in need of attention.

 

#4 simply deserved an NA log.

It's important to note these aren't the only examples (Just the first four that came up on a google search.), other notes have been deleted.

[+Team Microdot]

Checked through the logs on the four caches referred to earlier:

 

1. Muggled 2 March, wet and in need of attention since. Note 14 May

2. Log wet and mouldy 25 March, disabled 6 April. Note 14th May

3. Disabled 15th Feb. Note 14th May

4. DNF since 19 April 2013. Disabled 10 Jan 2014. Note 14th May

 

If the note poster was supposedly operating on a three month window, #1, #2 were premature - but the caches were in need of attention.

 

#4 simply deserved an NA log.

It's important to note these aren't the only examples (Just the first four that came up on a google search.), other notes have been deleted.

 

I'm just trying to take and share a balanced view on the examples brought to the thread

[fendmar]

Checked through the logs on the four caches referred to earlier:

 

1. Muggled 2 March, wet and in need of attention since. Note 14 May

2. Log wet and mouldy 25 March, disabled 6 April. Note 14th May

3. Disabled 15th Feb. Note 14th May

4. DNF since 19 April 2013. Disabled 10 Jan 2014. Note 14th May

 

If the note poster was supposedly operating on a three month window, #1, #2 were premature - but the caches were in need of attention.

 

#4 simply deserved an NA log.

It's important to note these aren't the only examples (Just the first four that came up on a google search.), other notes have been deleted.

 

I'm just trying to take and share a balanced view on the examples brought to the thread

Unfortunately, the activity has led to more than just trash being removed from the game, and for me that just doesn't seem right somehow.

 

I suspect number four was probably already on the reviewer's radar. To be fair it's not like that area is exactly saturated and it's blocking that perfect ammo can cache with the dreamy sunset lake view guaranteed 365 1/4 days a year.

 

So I will add you to the Helpful Fellow Cacher column, too!

[+The A-Team]

You can put me down in the "Wannabe Reviewer" column. If he actually took the time to inspect each cache individually, use the appropriate log type for the situation, and tailor his comments to each individual scenario, then I could consider his actions as "Helpful Fellow Cacher". However, a boilerplate note mass-posted and on caches where it isn't necessarily appropriate or even accurate? IMO, not good. I wouldn't go as far as calling his actions rude, but it isn't the desired way of going about it and his notes would be promptly deleted if they showed up on caches of mine.

[+narcissa]

You can put me down in the "Wannabe Reviewer" column. If he actually took the time to inspect each cache individually, use the appropriate log type for the situation, and tailor his comments to each individual scenario, then I could consider his actions as "Helpful Fellow Cacher". However, a boilerplate note mass-posted and on caches where it isn't necessarily appropriate or even accurate? IMO, not good. I wouldn't go as far as calling his actions rude, but it isn't the desired way of going about it and his notes would be promptly deleted if they showed up on caches of mine.

 

I agree with this.

[+K13]

Does the mass-spamming of geocache pages with the boilerplate message become harassment at some point? Say, after 25 or 50 postings of his cut-and-paste message?

[+fizzymagic]

OK, I couldn't resist. I posted the following to one of his cache pages:

 

Hello my fellow geocacher! A good group of us well-meaning cachers are trying our best to urge cache owners to bring their caches up to snuff. I really enjoy finding good caches. I noticed that this cache has been out for over 6 months and has no favorite points. Could you improve the hide, or do as I do, and archive it so that somebody who knows how to hide good caches can use the spot for something better? Thanks folks and keep caching.

 

I am certain that nobody here who is defending his notes will find this one in the least offensive; after all, I am only trying to improve geocaching for everybody!

[+Team Microdot]

OK, I couldn't resist. I posted the following to one of his cache pages:

 

Hello my fellow geocacher! A good group of us well-meaning cachers are trying our best to urge cache owners to bring their caches up to snuff. I really enjoy finding good caches. I noticed that this cache has been out for over 6 months and has no favorite points. Could you improve the hide, or do as I do, and archive it so that somebody who knows how to hide good caches can use the spot for something better? Thanks folks and keep caching.

 

I am certain that nobody here who is defending his notes will find this one in the least offensive; after all, I am only trying to improve geocaching for everybody!

 

Now that made me chuckle - do let us know how you get on

[+TriciaG]

Does the mass-spamming of geocache pages with the boilerplate message become harassment at some point? Say, after 25 or 50 postings of his cut-and-paste message?

If they're all to the same cache or cache owner, then there may be a case for harassment. Who is being harassed if they're all to different COs?

 

I dislike Fizzy's note. Caches that are missing or damaged are MUCH different than caches that are blah and unremarkable.

[4wheelin_fool]

OK, I couldn't resist. I posted the following to one of his cache pages:

 

Hello my fellow geocacher! A good group of us well-meaning cachers are trying our best to urge cache owners to bring their caches up to snuff. I really enjoy finding good caches. I noticed that this cache has been out for over 6 months and has no favorite points. Could you improve the hide, or do as I do, and archive it so that somebody who knows how to hide good caches can use the spot for something better? Thanks folks and keep caching.

 

I am certain that nobody here who is defending his notes will find this one in the least offensive; after all, I am only trying to improve geocaching for everybody!

 

What if he gets annoyed and archives all of his hides?

[+Touchstone]

OK, I couldn't resist. I posted the following to one of his cache pages:

 

Hello my fellow geocacher! A good group of us well-meaning cachers are trying our best to urge cache owners to bring their caches up to snuff. I really enjoy finding good caches. I noticed that this cache has been out for over 6 months and has no favorite points. Could you improve the hide, or do as I do, and archive it so that somebody who knows how to hide good caches can use the spot for something better? Thanks folks and keep caching.

 

I am certain that nobody here who is defending his notes will find this one in the least offensive; after all, I am only trying to improve geocaching for everybody!

 

But..but...you don't even live near his caches. The part I really worry about is that now the OP's survey is completely hosed. In your earlier posts you seem to come down pretty firmly in the WR (Wannabe Reviewer) column, but now I'm not sure.

 

I'm voting that he merely ignores your post and deletes it

[+JPreto]

Stuff like this happens all too frequently. Someone who is planning a visit to another area, far from their home, looks at a few local cache pages and notices that they have been wet piles of pulp without lids for several years. They post NAs, but then the locals jump all over them for not living in the area. It really doesn't matter if a 9 year old in Venezuela, an extraterrestrial, or a Lackey posted it, this doesn't change the fact that the caches have obviously existed as wet piles of pulp without lids for several years. Its much more of a busybody activity to delve into someone's profile and find out where they are from, rather than address the issue. When I see something like this, I suspect that the locals have gently bullied their peers into keeping quiet, and when an outsider acts it throws the entire process into disarray.

 

I totally agree with this ans this is exactly what is happening to me in Brazil. I arrived to Brazil last year and started geocaching. After participating in some events I realized that:

 

1) most of them don´t use DNF because, as they said: "discourages people to visit the caches"

 

2) most of them don´t regularly visit their caches to see if they are OK to be visited

 

3) some of them, after I post a NM they just log a OM saying: "The geocacher that asked for maintenance did it in an incorrect way..." just to find out that after no one else visiting the cache for 3 months the CO posts another OM saying: "the cache is gone and has been replaced".

 

4) some of the caches were disabled for over 6 months without any act from the reviewers.

 

All this was until I started acting like a cache cop early this year... and since then all changed. Most of them post DNFs; all problematic caches where disabled by reviewers and after 2 months of disabling they were archived if the CO didn´t repair the cache; COs are quicker in doing Maintenance and more caches are ready to be found and not abandoned.

 

All this had costs, most geocachers bully me and my caches (sometimes a series of caches, in a route, is just gone), many Facebook threats and posting offensive posts in Groundspeak Brazilian Forum, even instigated by the forum moderator.

 

So, sometimes acting like a cache cop just gives you more problems because people fell that you are forcing them to follow the rules of the game and they don´t want to. Some people just prefer to have 100 caches and 20 of them are not ok to visit but "at least" they are active, than having 80 caches and all of them perfect for a visit and 20 disabled.

[+Touchstone]

Does the mass-spamming of geocache pages with the boilerplate message become harassment at some point? Say, after 25 or 50 postings of his cut-and-paste message?

 

The one or two cases I can remember, the Notes were much more rude/aggressive than the poor hapless victim, who is the topic of this thread. They are also more targeted at an individual or a small group/organization of cachers. I imagine that it's a much easier decision for Groundspeak if the posting is done by a sock account. I think the decision to take action would be much more difficult with someone with thousands of Finds and hundreds of Hides on their account. I don't think our HFC/WR is anywhere close to violating TOU number 19:

 

Stalk, harass, or otherwise harm another user of our services, Groundspeak employee or third party.

[RuideAlmeida]

... many Facebook threats and posting offensive posts in Groundspeak Brazilian Forum, even instigated by the forum moderator.

 

The forum moderator, adviced two things:

 

1. The community should ignore your behaviour (considered agressive by them) and keep on playing the game.

 

2. If the community consider your behaviour inappropriate, it is hypocrite to rush to every new cache you place. If they can handle your caches, they can handle the owner.

 

Both of this would hardly be considered instigation.

 

Alerting other geocachers about some unpleasant and doubtful things you write about them in the foruns it is not instigation also... but there are an easy solution for it.

 

Stop spreading lies.

Edited May 24, 2014 by ruidealmeida

[jholly]

OK, I couldn't resist. I posted the following to one of his cache pages:

 

Hello my fellow geocacher! A good group of us well-meaning cachers are trying our best to urge cache owners to bring their caches up to snuff. I really enjoy finding good caches. I noticed that this cache has been out for over 6 months and has no favorite points. Could you improve the hide, or do as I do, and archive it so that somebody who knows how to hide good caches can use the spot for something better? Thanks folks and keep caching.

 

I am certain that nobody here who is defending his notes will find this one in the least offensive; after all, I am only trying to improve geocaching for everybody!

 

Bingo! Love it Fizzy!

[+JPreto]

... many Facebook threats and posting offensive posts in Groundspeak Brazilian Forum, even instigated by the forum moderator.

 

The forum moderator, adviced two things:

 

1. The community should ignore your behaviour (considered agressive by them) and keep on playing the game.

 

2. If the community consider your behaviour inappropriate, it is hypocrite to rush to every new cache you place. If they can handle your caches, they can handle the owner.

 

Both of this would hardly be considered instigation.

 

Alerting other geocachers about some unpleasant and doubtful things you write about them in the foruns it is not instigation also... but there are an easy solution for it.

 

Stop spreading lies.

 

You are the Brazil forum moderator and I have saved the messages you wrote in the Brazilian Geocaching Facebook page... but Groundspeak has no "jurisdiction" under Facebook and they even can´t access it because it is a restrict group, invitation only. I´m not going to put them here, just letting you know that I have them, even tho everything was erased the following day.

 

I´m not part of the group and never was because it is managed by the same geocachers that say: "the rules that Groundspeak writes in the guidelines are to be broken if it matches our needs" and they also publish caches that seem ok and when the reviewers publish them they change them so they can be found with hints like "talk to person A or B from the store" because they know that they had put that in the beginning the cache would never be published.

 

Lies, i don´t think so... Eye opener, maybe... but only for the ones that want to see!

[Keystone]

This thread is for discussing the mass placement by a non-reviewer of "reminder notes" on caches with maintenance issues. Let's stick to discussing that subject. Those with personal differences should resolve them privately.

[fendmar]

Strong feelings on all sides then!

 

Please remember it is just a game and this is just a discussion!

[+niraD]

I dislike Fizzy's note. Caches that are missing or damaged are MUCH different than caches that are blah and unremarkable.

I don't think Fizzy's concern is about caches that are blah and unremarkable, or about caches that are missing or damaged or behind construction zones or otherwise temporarily unavailable.

 

I think Fizzy's concern is about the mass placement by a non-reviewer of "reminder notes", as Keystone described it.

 

Personally, I thought Fizzy's note addressed that concern in a clever, humorous way. And I'm glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read it.

[fendmar]

I don't feel it is harassment to post such a log. I do believe it is close and unnecessary since in my experience GS already has a working system in place! It appeared some felt annoyed by the logs at the very least. I can't deny them that. That is when it became an issue I felt I wanted some other opinions about and to maybe find a solution to stop seeing the collateral damage resulting from inadvertently antagonizing anymore CO's, who are afterall fellow cachers, volunteers and in many instances paying customers and human beings!

[4wheelin_fool]

If he's waiting 90 days and actually reading the logs then its fine IMO. Jumping in there to beat the reviewer after being disabled a few weeks, and leaving boilerplate messages is something completely different.