knowschad Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 How about zero DNFs + 1 unresponsive owner? Oh so blue Four years since the last find, what's the big deal? Four years is nothing in wilderness areas. BTW, I think this was the oldest-unfound cache at one time... In fact, your logged a note on that cache pointing to the forum thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=212699 Link to comment
+Viajero Perdido Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Yeah, I had skin in the game on that one; if a phone call had gone differently I'd have jumped on a bus to Belize (I was nearby) and gone for an ultra-FTF. But that's water under the bridge. Now I see the reviewer's posted either a command, or a misspelled note that everyone can relax: cache owner send an email confirming the cache remains in place and in play. Thanks sailor, I owe you one. (Sailor is the CO) Link to comment
knowschad Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Yeah, I had skin in the game on that one; if a phone call had gone differently I'd have jumped on a bus to Belize (I was nearby) and gone for an ultra-FTF. But that's water under the bridge. Now I see the reviewer's posted either a command, or a misspelled note that everyone can relax: cache owner send an email confirming the cache remains in place and in play. Thanks sailor, I owe you one. (Sailor is the CO) Haha! Yeah, I noticed that possible double meaning as well. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Ok, now we have moved from annoying to ridiculous. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1890X_up-the-hill Not only has the cache received a single DNF after a number of finds, but because someone Posted an NA on it AFTER a very recent find, the reviewer disabled it anyway. But that's not all. When the owner re enables it based on the very recent find, he is accused of using a sock account! Fortunately, a subsequent cacher came along and vindicated the CO. People, this is the kind of thing that makes COs no longer want to be COs. Link to comment
+Michaelcycle Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 You have misread this, I suggest you go back and review my comments in the location where you first read about this. Link to comment
+narcissa Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Ok, now we have moved from annoying to ridiculous. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1890X_up-the-hill Not only has the cache received a single DNF after a number of finds, but because someone Posted an NA on it AFTER a very recent find, the reviewer disabled it anyway. But that's not all. When the owner re enables it based on the very recent find, he is accused of using a sock account! Fortunately, a subsequent cacher came along and vindicated the CO. People, this is the kind of thing that makes COs no longer want to be COs. This is totally ridiculous. Some caches are difficult and rarely found. There's no need for anyone to be so aggressive about a single DNF. A CO who isn't actively caching can monitor logs through email and a single DNF doesn't warrant anything more than monitoring. What an awful way to treat people for no reason. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Ok, now we have moved from annoying to ridiculous. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1890X_up-the-hill Not only has the cache received a single DNF after a number of finds, but because someone Posted an NA on it AFTER a very recent find, the reviewer disabled it anyway. But that's not all. When the owner re enables it based on the very recent find, he is accused of using a sock account! Fortunately, a subsequent cacher came along and vindicated the CO. People, this is the kind of thing that makes COs no longer want to be COs. This is totally ridiculous. Some caches are difficult and rarely found. There's no need for anyone to be so aggressive about a single DNF. A CO who isn't actively caching can monitor logs through email and a single DNF doesn't warrant anything more than monitoring. What an awful way to treat people for no reason. I agree. Ignoring the recent find, which some have called into question, I thought reviewers didn't take action based on a NA from someone who has not sought a cache. We had a recent episode in the forums where an Alaskan land manager was told as much. If you haven't sought it, butt out. But here we have a viable cache that a non seeker throws a NA on and it gets disabled because it had a single DNF on it. It's not like these are high profile, often sought out caches. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 A CO who isn't actively caching can monitor logs through email and a single DNF doesn't warrant anything more than monitoring. What an awful way to treat people for no reason. Btw, your point is proved by the fact that the CO responded the same day that the reviewer disabled the cache. Link to comment
Keystone Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Manufactured drama like this is what makes reviewers not want to be reviewers anymore. Or at least, to ignore the forums. We do know who the sock puppet belongs to, and we do know the actual dates of the logs. I am closing this thread. Don't start another one targeted as this one was. Link to comment
Recommended Posts