Changing a date on a historic cache (GC2DBE)

[+Team Hugs]

Moving a discussion from cache pages into the forums.

 

This is a discussion about Ancient Lake (http://coord.info/GC2DBE), its proper date, and the effect on cachers pursuing Jasmer challenges.

 

For most of its life, GC2DBE had a listed placement date of 1/23/2001. Many veteran Ohio cachers believe that the early placement date was an anachronism, due to the relatively late GC-code assigned to it. See, for example, Shawnee Lookout Cache (http://coord.info/GC31A), with a placement date of 2/18/2001. In fact, the cache page gives a long and detailed explanation as to why the placement date on Ancient Lake was incorrect.

 

Nevertheless, the placement date was allowed to stand for the last ... well, 14.9 years.

 

Sometime in December, the placement date on Ancient Lake was changed to 12/23/2001. This probably more accurately reflects when the cache was placed. However, a number of people (including many in my Michigan online forums) have reacted negatively to the change, as the relative scarcity of 2001 caches creates problems for those pursuing various date-oriented challenges (in particular, Jasmer). A number of people were relying on that cache for their 1/2001 cell in their Jasmer grid and now no longer qualify.

 

Various points that have been raised in the discussion include:

• The 12/2001 date is probably more accurate. Cache listings should be accurate.
• The fact that the inaccurate date has been allowed to stand for 14.9 years makes a change at this point unusual at best, and maddening at worst. Could the old date have been grandfathered?
• Challenges aren't an essential part of the game, so concerns about not qualifying for challenges are less valid than concerns for historical accuracy.
• Challenges relying on cache attributes have these sorts of problems all the time; there's nothing new here. (See, for example, the hue and cry that arises when a cache owner changes the D/T rating on a cache that someone needed to complete a Fizzy grid.)

Do folks here have thoughts on the situation?

 

[Disclaimer: I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. I'm slowly working on my Jasmer grid, but I have enough other holes in my grid that one more hole doesn't bother me a great deal.]

[+The A-Team]

Various points that have been raised in the discussion include:

• The 12/2001 date is probably more accurate. Cache listings should be accurate.
  
• The fact that the inaccurate date has been allowed to stand for 14.9 years makes a change at this point unusual at best, and maddening at worst. Could the old date have been grandfathered?
  
• Challenges aren't an essential part of the game, so concerns about not qualifying for challenges are less valid than concerns for historical accuracy.
  
• Challenges relying on cache attributes have these sorts of problems all the time; there's nothing new here. (See, for example, the hue and cry that arises when a cache owner changes the D/T rating on a cache that someone needed to complete a Fizzy grid.)

My thoughts are that I agree with the first, third, and fourth bullet points. If you (the collective "you") want to complete challenge caches that depend on editable aspects of caches (e.g. date placed, D/T, size, attributes, name, etc.), you need to be prepared for the possibility that some of those aspects may be edited before you log your completion. If some of those cachers have met the Jasmer requirements and haven't yet found the relevant challenge cache(s), then they need to go out and find a new cache to fill that now-empty spot. Next time, try to find the challenge sooner. They can use it as a learning experience.

 

Edit to add: FWIW, while I don't have a horse in this race, my response would be the same even if I was directly affected by such a change. In fact, I've previously been directly affected by a similar change (all cache sizes in a day; one of the sizes changed), and I went out to complete the requirements again. C'est la vie.

Edited January 4, 2017 by The A-Team

[+auctnr]

what if the cache were indeed placed at the earlier date orignally posted but listed on another site? Then later cross listed to gc.com What would you then suggest the "placed date" to be?

[+The A-Team]

what if the cache were indeed placed at the earlier date orignally posted but listed on another site? Then later cross listed to gc.com What would you then suggest the "placed date" to be?

IMO, whatever the original "placed" date was. After all, the field isn't named "Listed date"...

[+KBLAST]

I think there are two important questions that need answered here:

 

1) Who changed it?

2) Why?

 

If the answers to both questions are legitimate and reasonable, then if it were done 5 years ago, people would still be complaining that it was wrong for an entire decade. If it happened in 2006, 5 years. People might have complained. So the question is - when is the RIGHT time to fix something like this? Do we wait 5 more years? If there is a legitimate reason to "fix" the date, then waiting doesn't make it any better.

 

There are very few people who can change that date. I'd be incredibly surprised if it were anyone but the Cache Owner. If it was the Cache Owner, then I'm sure they have a legitimate reason to have changed it, and all of the "what ifs" are pointless. I'm sure it was not an easy thing for the CO to do, I can't imagine how hard it would be. Then to have a bunch of people whining about it - geez! The CO has been dealing with people complaining that it's not the first cache in Ohio for years. This was a no win situation. The only win was for the CO to do what he/she thought was the RIGHT thing to do, then move along with life.

 

People have been complaining for years - a little more complaining is probably just more noise. Stop tormenting this poor CO.

[Keystone]

I'm the Community Volunteer Reviewer for Northwest Ohio. I didn't change it (though for years, I was tempted to do so, but it's not my place). The only people who can edit a cache listing are the cache owner, a Reviewer or a Lackey. Geocaching HQ was closed last week.

 

The Cache Owner's last login date is December 30th. The first log on the cache listing that complains about the date change is dated December 30th.

 

I will leave it to the outstanding detective and reasoning skills of the forum community to decide what happened, based on the above facts.

[+KBLAST]

I will leave it to the outstanding detective and reasoning skills of the forum community to decide what happened, based on the above facts.

Colonel Mustard, in the Library, with the Rope. If you'd like to complain you can contact Mr. Mustard at colonelmustard@clue.com.

[+niraD]

I will leave it to the outstanding detective and reasoning skills of the forum community to decide what happened, based on the above facts.

Colonel Mustard, in the Library, with the Rope. If you'd like to complain you can contact Mr. Mustard at colonelmustard@clue.com.

How many bearded monks do you have in your hand?

[+narcissa]

Accuracy of the cache listing is more important than side games. If it was incorrect, then it had no legitimacy in the first place and there's no reason to be upset. This is no different than the drama about terrain and difficulty ratings and ultimately underscores the silliness of these side games.

[+threenow24]

It's clear the cache's placed date is now correct, which is how it should be. What's sad (and kinda comical) is reading the notes from people removing their favorite points and complaining about their Jasmers getting blown up.

[+on4bam]

It's clear the cache's placed date is now correct, which is how it should be.

 

I have no interest in whatever outcome of this discussion but:

 

steelerhd1 Found it 01 Nov 01

 

Nice walk, nice park, saw several flashes of deer

tails when I remembered to be quiet for awhile. Took a few mins to find when i got within 20 ft, was my first cache. Left nothing but took a nice breath of piney air

 

ccchaz Found it 25 Oct 01

 

Just made this log so it does'nt show up on caches near me I'm am one of the two who are on the title page.

 

That's two logs BEFORE the cache was supposedly placed.

 

Then there's this:

 

 

Ladybuggers! Found it 28 Dec 01

 

When we saw the date that this one was hidden we almost didn't do it. We couldn't believe that it had been hidden so long and no one had found it.

 

5 days after the new publish day is "a long time"?

Edited January 4, 2017 by on4bam

[+irisisleuk]

Whether or not the change of date is accurate, the CO should have written an owner maintenance note explaining why he suddenly changed the date. It is strange to do this without any explanation, since it is clear from the regular logs that cacher's main reason to find this cache is a Jasmer Challenge.

The notes and even a "needs archived" are just another sad examples of how statistics are more important than just enjoying finding a geocache. A favorite awarded just because of a specific date... isn't the fact it is from 2001 and still maintained special enough?!

If I were the CO I would now consider archiving the cache, since this is apparently what cachers want, they don't want to find it, they just want to fill a grid.

[+ChileHead]

The cache owner has been inactive for 14 years. Very likely when they made the change (I assume they made the change!) they had no idea that the date would mean anything to anybody. Likely somebody contacted them to ask them to correct the date to reflect reality, and they did so.

 

I can't imagine a cacher who left the game in 2002 thinking that a listing date would mean anything to anybody. Jasmer, Fizzy, etc ... would be pretty much meaningless. That would explain why there was no note or explanation.

[+igator210]

And now I see someone has posted a "Needs Archived" simply because it creates holes in statistics.

[+J Grouchy]

This actually sort of highlights the problem with challenges. Cachers must rely only on data available on the cache page to feed their statistics. A change - be it a correction or an error - essentially makes the statistics fleeting and flexible. The challenge then becomes, in effect, a moving target.

 

Placement date is further complicated by the fact that, often, people place a cache days, weeks...even months or years...before submitting it for publication. Sometimes the actual date they left if there is forgotten. Does "placement date" become "submittal date" then?

 

I don't have any interest in stuff like Jasmer or Fizzy grids because of the fact that none of the information is truly verifiable and relies on the honesty - or the whim - of the cache owner.

[+ChileHead]

And now I see someone has posted a "Needs Archived" simply because it creates holes in statistics.

 

That is one of the most ridiculous needs archived notes I've seen.

[+Touchstone]

And now I see someone has posted a "Needs Archived" simply because it creates holes in statistics.

 

That is one of the most ridiculous needs archived notes I've seen.

Well, that kind of explains why the cache owner disappeared for 14 years. Such a warm welcoming community

[+Sherminator18]

And now I see someone has posted a "Needs Archived" simply because it creates holes in statistics.

 

That is one of the most ridiculous needs archived notes I've seen.

 

Agreed. That is the most ridiculous thing I've seen. And complete abuse of the "Needs Archive" log. If you're that upset about it, maybe this hobby isn't for you.

[+KBLAST]

Agreed. That is the most ridiculous thing I've seen. And complete abuse of the "Needs Archive" log. If you're that upset about it, maybe this hobby isn't for you.

100% agree. i think using this as a case of why challenges and side "games" should be eliminated is silly, though. People who get this upset should probably reconsider being a part of the side games - it doesn't mean that the rest of us who enjoy the side games and don't mind the idiosyncrasies need them taken away from us.

 

BTW - I've done this cache twice. I still remember the awesome hike, the beautiful scenery, and the fun I had with friends doing the cache. This cache is a tribute to what is great about geocaching. For people to turn it into a nasty situation and to attack the CO, misuse the NA log, and post things like "I'll show them - I'm taking my favorite point away!" tells me what the real problem is - and it isn't the side game.

[+Chaenorrhinum]

And now I see someone has posted a "Needs Archived" simply because it creates holes in statistics.

 

That is one of the most ridiculous needs archived notes I've seen.

 

Agreed. That is the most ridiculous thing I've seen. And complete abuse of the "Needs Archive" log. If you're that upset about it, maybe this hobby isn't for you.

 

You think that's ridiculous, go back and read the other "Needs Archived" note from July 2014

Edited January 4, 2017 by Chaenorrhinum

[+Mudfrog]

I'm the Community Volunteer Reviewer for Northwest Ohio. I didn't change it (though for years, I was tempted to do so, but it's not my place). The only people who can edit a cache listing are the cache owner, a Reviewer or a Lackey. Geocaching HQ was closed last week.

 

The Cache Owner's last login date is December 30th. The first log on the cache listing that complains about the date change is dated December 30th.

 

I will leave it to the outstanding detective and reasoning skills of the forum community to decide what happened, based on the above facts.

 

Looks like the CO is complaining about the date change now. I'm not interested in doing a Jasmer but this is interesting and i'd like to see how and why this transpired.

[+Chaenorrhinum]

I'm the Community Volunteer Reviewer for Northwest Ohio. I didn't change it (though for years, I was tempted to do so, but it's not my place). The only people who can edit a cache listing are the cache owner, a Reviewer or a Lackey. Geocaching HQ was closed last week.

 

The Cache Owner's last login date is December 30th. The first log on the cache listing that complains about the date change is dated December 30th.

 

I will leave it to the outstanding detective and reasoning skills of the forum community to decide what happened, based on the above facts.

 

Looks like the CO is complaining about the date change now. I'm not interested in doing a Jasmer but this is interesting and i'd like to see how and why this transpired.

 

If you click on the link to the cache owner, you'll notice that he's no longer the cache owner...

[+mblatch]

Since one of the original hiders is now chiming in on the cache page, perhaps he can now clarify whether the true hide date is Jan 2001 or Dec 2001. Just a thought. :-)

Edited January 4, 2017 by mblatch

[+fbingha]

Hey, don't you know geocaching.com is just a listing service? The owner can change his listing however he wants as long as it follows the guidelines.

 

If you play a side game that relies on statistics that can be changed after you've recorded them, well, you should be prepared to deal with it.

 

Even then, if you are obsessed with such statistics, why aren't you obsessed with acquiring the most accurate statistics? The evidence clearly shows that the hide date was wrong so why wouldn't you be motivated to find a cache with the correct hide date. I suspect you also greatly enjoyed finding the D5T5 that was really a D3T4.

 

I have a challenge based on finding the oldest caches in our county. If someone changed the hide dates, I would be forced to adjust the caches that had to be found. I certainly wouldn't go all whiny and start posting about it on the cache page.

 

.. that said

 

I am surprised the HQ hasn't locked down the changing of hide dates and ratings for caches after a certain time frame so that the jasper people don't get upset.

Edited January 4, 2017 by fbingha

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Newest log seems to be from the original CO, asking "Wha' happen'd?"

 

I'll be watching THIS story!

Edited January 4, 2017 by TeamRabbitRun

[+mblatch]

This will probably only fan the flames, but I did a little more detective work into the logs on Ancient Lake that were pointing out as being posted on 11/1/01 and 10/25/01, prior to the supposed 12/23/01 corrected date.

 

Dates on logs can be manually changed upon entry, but what cannot be changed is the unique code that is assigned to each log (GLXXXX) sequentially as it received by the server. The log on 12/28/01, after the alleged correct date of 12/23/01, is GLJGMC, which is consistent with other Dec 2001 log codes on other older caches. The log for 11/1/01 is GLJY9Z, and the log for 10/25/01 iS GLK6N8. This means that while they are dated prior to 12/23/01, they were likely posted in Jan or Feb 2002 since their code numbers are after the 12/28/01 log. I looked up logs on older caches, and those actually made in Oct and Nov 2001 will start with GLH, not GLJ or GLK.

[+TyroneShoelaces]

I can see why some would be disappointed, and the reactions show that for some it definitely IS about the numbers. ;-) Numbers are important to me, too, but did they not also enjoy the time spent finding the cache? I found Ancient Lake early in my caching days, I didn't even realize at the time the significance of the cache. I just happened to be close to where I was on a work trip, and it was really old, so I gave it a shot. I enjoyed it for the nice hike, not the numbers. Sure, this opens up 01/2001 on my Jasmer grid, too, but I'd rather fill it again with a cache that rightfully belongs there.

 

I do wish it had been corrected sooner, though. I went on a road trip this past year that put me relatively close to another 01/2001 cache, but I didn't push farther to go for it because I didn't foresee this coming. Guess that means there's another road trip coming this summer!

[+on4bam]

Since one of the original hiders is now chiming in on the cache page, perhaps he can now clarify whether the true hide date is Jan 2001 or Dec 2001. Just a thought. :-)

 

If logdates are correct it's certainly not December 2001 as there are 2 finds before that (October and November)

 

Hey, don't you know geocaching.com is just a listing service? The owner can change his listing however he wants as long as it follows the guidelines.

 

"Just a listing service"? Sure... If they were just that, there wouldn't be all these rules and guidelines. You can't have it both ways.

 

A "placed date" should not be editable anyway, it should automatically be the published date (except for events).

[+mblatch]

If logdates are correct it's certainly not December 2001 as there are 2 finds before that (October and November)

 

The problem is that I don't think the Oct and Nov 2001 logs are correct. If you read my follow-up post, I did a little detective work, and the log codes for those dates actually occur after the 12/28/01 log, likely sometime in Jan or Feb 2002.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=342586&view=findpost&p=5628552

Edited January 4, 2017 by mblatch

[+on4bam]

The problem is that I don't think the Oct and Nov 2001 logs are correct. If you read my follow-up post, I did a little detective work, and the log codes for those dates actually occur after the 12/28/01 log, likely sometime in Jan or Feb 2002.

 

You posted while I was writing

[+dprovan]

what if the cache were indeed placed at the earlier date orignally posted but listed on another site? Then later cross listed to gc.com What would you then suggest the "placed date" to be?

The placed date is that date it was placed. The submission for review for geocaching.com or any other site is not technically relevant, although I have no problem with a CO taking it into consideration when he picks that date.

 

What's sad (and kinda comical) is reading the notes from people removing their favorite points and complaining about their Jasmers getting blown up.

I don't think it's sad or comical. They have good reason to be disappointed. If the CO thinks the new date is correct, then of course it should stand, but that's not a reason to minimize the very real emotions felt by those that were depending on the original date.

 

This actually sort of highlights the problem with challenges. Cachers must rely only on data available on the cache page to feed their statistics. A change - be it a correction or an error - essentially makes the statistics fleeting and flexible. The challenge then becomes, in effect, a moving target.

Meh. It's a challenge. The fact that it's hard because things can change is a feature, not a problem.

 

Placement date is further complicated by the fact that, often, people place a cache days, weeks...even months or years...before submitting it for publication. Sometimes the actual date they left if there is forgotten. Does "placement date" become "submittal date" then?

Yes, the placement date might be days, weeks, even months or years in advance of the publication date. I see no problem with that as long as the placement date is accurate.

 

I don't have any interest in stuff like Jasmer or Fizzy grids because of the fact that none of the information is truly verifiable and relies on the honesty - or the whim - of the cache owner.

I have no interest in Jasmer or Fizzy because they're too hard for me given my geocaching style. But they challenge you to find caches with those dates and ratings on the listing, so their accuracy is irrelevant. Furthermore, if a date or rating changes because the CO is being dishonest or capricious, then the seeker may have been trying to meet the challenge based on its letter rather than its spirit. I don't have much sympathy for a seeker caught by depending on a cache like that.

[+Mudfrog]

I'm the Community Volunteer Reviewer for Northwest Ohio. I didn't change it (though for years, I was tempted to do so, but it's not my place). The only people who can edit a cache listing are the cache owner, a Reviewer or a Lackey. Geocaching HQ was closed last week.

 

The Cache Owner's last login date is December 30th. The first log on the cache listing that complains about the date change is dated December 30th.

 

I will leave it to the outstanding detective and reasoning skills of the forum community to decide what happened, based on the above facts.

 

Looks like the CO is complaining about the date change now. I'm not interested in doing a Jasmer but this is interesting and i'd like to see how and why this transpired.

 

If you click on the link to the cache owner, you'll notice that he's no longer the cache owner...

 

I thought i had read that the cache was adopted out so i should have stated "original CO" in my first reply. In this case, i would think the original owner would know better than anyone else, when the cache was placed.

[+frinklabs]

These incidences can also be precipitated by a change to the difficulty or terrain.

 

Here were two suggestions that might have mitigated that:

 

[FEATURE] Altering D/T as a log type

 

[FEATURE] Include D/T rating in Found It log

 

Should I bother suggesting these?

 

[FEATURE] Altering placed date as a log type

 

[FEATURE] Include temporal cache data snapshot in Found It log

 

(the latter could also include other alterable things like Attributes)

[+J Grouchy]

This actually sort of highlights the problem with challenges. Cachers must rely only on data available on the cache page to feed their statistics. A change - be it a correction or an error - essentially makes the statistics fleeting and flexible. The challenge then becomes, in effect, a moving target.

Meh. It's a challenge. The fact that it's hard because things can change is a feature, not a problem.

 

Tell that to everyone on the cache page who's been griping and moaning about the date change. Feature, problem...I don't care which it is. I was merely describing what I perceived as an aspect of the challenge cache system that inevitably leads to complaints.

[+JPatton]

Looks like the date on the cache page has been changed back to 1/23/2001.

[+mblatch]

Looks like the date on the cache page has been changed back to 1/23/2001.

 

I can only imagine the number of nasty-grams that were pouring into that poor cacher's email inbox.

Edited January 4, 2017 by mblatch

[Keystone]

This will probably only fan the flames, but I did a little more detective work into the logs on Ancient Lake that were pointing out as being posted on 11/1/01 and 10/25/01, prior to the supposed 12/23/01 corrected date.

 

Dates on logs can be manually changed upon entry, but what cannot be changed is the unique code that is assigned to each log (GLXXXX) sequentially as it received by the server. The log on 12/28/01, after the alleged correct date of 12/23/01, is GLJGMC, which is consistent with other Dec 2001 log codes on other older caches. The log for 11/1/01 is GLJY9Z, and the log for 10/25/01 iS GLK6N8. This means that while they are dated prior to 12/23/01, they were likely posted in Jan or Feb 2002 since their code numbers are after the 12/28/01 log. I looked up logs on older caches, and those actually made in Oct and Nov 2001 will start with GLH, not GLJ or GLK.

That's exactly right. The log dated 25 October 2001 was entered in the database on 15 January 2002, and the log dated 01 November 2001 was entered in the database on 08 January 2002.

[Keystone]

Looks like the date on the cache page has been changed back to 1/23/2001.

That's correct.

 

And, due to speculation on the cache listing and on social media, I am compelled to state that I did *NOT* edit the placement date - either the change made on December 30th or the reversion to the original placement date that was made today.

[+NanCycle]

 

Placement date is further complicated by the fact that, often, people place a cache days, weeks...even months or years...before submitting it for publication. Sometimes the actual date they left if there is forgotten. Does "placement date" become "submittal date" then?

 

 

And "Placed date" isn't even really the date the cache was put in place. It is the date the cache page was initiated, unless the CO then edits that date. Personally I think all these stats should be based on "Published date" because that isn't subject to manipulation.

[+mblatch]

That's exactly right. The log dated 25 October 2001 was entered in the database on 15 January 2002, and the log dated 01 November 2001 was entered in the database on 08 January 2002.

 

With your special reviewer powers, are you able to look into the database to see the timestamp of when Ancient Lake was submitted for review? Pretty sure I know what the answer is going to be though based on all of the evidence. haha

[cezanne]

 

Dates on logs can be manually changed upon entry, but what cannot be changed is the unique code that is assigned to each log (GLXXXX) sequentially as it received by the server. The log on 12/28/01, after the alleged correct date of 12/23/01, is GLJGMC, which is consistent with other Dec 2001 log codes on other older caches. The log for 11/1/01 is GLJY9Z, and the log for 10/25/01 iS GLK6N8. This means that while they are dated prior to 12/23/01, they were likely posted in Jan or Feb 2002 since their code numbers are after the 12/28/01 log. I looked up logs on older caches, and those actually made in Oct and Nov 2001 will start with GLH, not GLJ or GLK.

 

Of course I do not know when the loggers found the cache what I do know is that the day one posts a log is not necessarily the date of the cache visit. For example, I decided to log my first cache weeks later and I know some other cachers did the same (not necessarily only for their first cache). When I found the cache, I did not put any value on an online log and did not plan to go for a further cache at all. Later I changed my mind. I logged online with the date of my real visit (I signed the log book in the cache on that day).

Even now it can happen that I log some caches weeks or months later.

[+mblatch]

Of course I do not know when the loggers found the cache what I do know is that the day one posts a log is not necessarily the date of the cache visit. For example, I decided to log my first cache weeks later and I know some other cachers did the same (not necessarily only for their first cache). When I found the cache, I did not put any value on an online log and did not plan to go for a further cache at all. Later I changed my mind. I logged online with the date of my real visit (I signed the log book in the cache on that day).Even now it can happen that I log some caches weeks or months later.

That is correct. However, with all of the data available, the preponderance of evidence seems to point that the true hidden date of the cache is 12/23/01. The original hider that posted the note on the cache page didn't even create his account until August 2001. Since the cache has been adopted out, I couldn't find any caches created by the other hider (Mark Robinette) to see when his account was created. It seems odd that both logs that people point to as being older than 12/23/01 were actually published in Jan 2002. I find it difficult (though not impossible) to believe that a cache was hidden in Jan 2001 and not published until Dec 2001, as evidenced by the GC code.

 

My personal opinion is that the correct date should be listed on the cache page. If it affected me, I would probably be miffed and whine for a little while, but in the end, I would just go out and find another to fill the grid. Thankfully, I have multiple finds in all jasmer grids, so I really don't have to worry about it. I will say that if I ever go to find Ohio's "oldest" cache, I will be going to Shawnee Lookout, and not Ancient Lake.

Edited January 4, 2017 by mblatch

[+KBLAST]

That's exactly right. The log dated 25 October 2001 was entered in the database on 15 January 2002, and the log dated 01 November 2001 was entered in the database on 08 January 2002.

 

With your special reviewer powers, are you able to look into the database to see the timestamp of when Ancient Lake was submitted for review? Pretty sure I know what the answer is going to be though based on all of the evidence. haha

The debate has NOTHING to do with when this cache was submitted to geocaching.com. The question has always been - why did this guy hide a cache in 1/2001 and wait to publish it on GC.com until 12/2001? Did he list it on another listing site? Did he hide it and forget about it, then had a renewed interest and remembered hiding it? The original hider Chuck Fackleman came back to the page to complain - I wish he'd weigh in with some clarification. Same with Swampy Ranger - he obviously logged in today and changed it back to 1/2001. There's a lot not being said, and I guess that's their right.

 

I just wish people would quit being so mean. Everyone has a right to be angry or upset - what you do with that anger and disappointment is what shows your maturity.

[+bflentje]

And now I see someone has posted a "Needs Archived" simply because it creates holes in statistics.

 

So many little flowers wilt when they don't get their way. This is why humanity is doomed.

[+The A-Team]

The question has always been - why did this guy hide a cache in 1/2001 and wait to publish it on GC.com until 12/2001?

Really? The evidence very clearly points to December being the correct date, so I didn't think your question was even one that needed to be answered.

 

There have been several burning questions that have come and gone over the last couple of days, but currently the real question that needs to be answered is "who changed the date on the listing to December?" The most recent note on the listing seems to indicate that it wasn't the CO. Keystone has stated that he didn't do it. That seems to leave either another reviewer or a Lackey as the only remaining candidates. The next questions are "which reviewer/Lackey?", and "why?". I suspect the answer to the latter is something like "the CO hadn't logged in for a long time and appeared inactive, so I didn't think they would notice/care".

[+mblatch]

The debate has NOTHING to do with when this cache was submitted to geocaching.com. The question has always been - why did this guy hide a cache in 1/2001 and wait to publish it on GC.com until 12/2001?

I guess our difference here is that I don't believe he hid it in Jan 2001. All of the evidence seems to indicate that he hid it in Dec 2001 and just entered the hidden date incorrectly. I wish that the original owner who chimed in on the cache page would clarify one way or the other which is the correct date.

Edited January 4, 2017 by mblatch

[+bflentje]

The question has always been - why did this guy hide a cache in 1/2001 and wait to publish it on GC.com until 12/2001?

Really? The evidence very clearly points to December being the correct date, so I didn't think your question was even one that needed to be answered.

 

There have been several burning questions that have come and gone over the last couple of days, but currently the real question that needs to be answered is "who changed the date on the listing to December?" The most recent note on the listing seems to indicate that it wasn't the CO. Keystone has stated that he didn't do it. That seems to leave either another reviewer or a Lackey as the only remaining candidates. The next questions are "which reviewer/Lackey?", and "why?". I suspect the answer to the latter is something like "the CO hadn't logged in for a long time and appeared inactive, so I didn't think they would notice/care".

 

Why is it the most important question? So dozens of irritated cachers not smart enough to score two or more finds on the one month/year combination can incessantly blast the person that changed the date? Public shaming of the most mundane things demonstrates how pathetic we've come as a society.

[+KBLAST]

The question has always been - why did this guy hide a cache in 1/2001 and wait to publish it on GC.com until 12/2001?

Really? The evidence very clearly points to December being the correct date, so I didn't think your question was even one that needed to be answered.

 

There have been several burning questions that have come and gone over the last couple of days, but currently the real question that needs to be answered is "who changed the date on the listing to December?" The most recent note on the listing seems to indicate that it wasn't the CO. Keystone has stated that he didn't do it. That seems to leave either another reviewer or a Lackey as the only remaining candidates. The next questions are "which reviewer/Lackey?", and "why?". I suspect the answer to the latter is something like "the CO hadn't logged in for a long time and appeared inactive, so I didn't think they would notice/care".

The evidence very clearly points to December being the month he published the cache to GC.com. If he published it elsewhere in 1/2001 - it would be perfectly reasonable for him to backdate it to 1/2001.

 

I do agree with you - I'm curious who changed it. I'm also guessing we as the community will never be told.

[+The A-Team]

Why is it the most important question?

I didn't say it was. I don't know where you got that from. I was just outlining the questions that could be asked about the situation.

 

So dozens of irritated cachers not smart enough to score two or more finds on the one month/year combination can incessantly blast the person that changed the date? Public shaming of the most mundane things demonstrates how pathetic we've come as a society.

There's absolutely no reason why anyone other than the CO needs to know who changed the date. As has been demonstrated by the notes on the cache listing, there are too many people that can't control themselves, so publicly naming the person would be a foolhardy thing to do.

[+mblatch]

If he published it elsewhere in 1/2001 - it would be perfectly reasonable for him to backdate it to 1/2001.

Other than letterboxing, what other cache listing sites existed in Jan 2001? Navicaching started in 2001, but I'm not sure of the month. I did a search on that site, and there is a cache that pops up in Toledo, Ohio on 1/1/01, but it is retired and has no logs. The coordinates are also quite a distance from where Ancient Lake is located (though at least in the same general area of Ohio).

 

Navicache Name: Soon to return

Hider: GizmoGuy411

Coordinates: N 41° 36.947' W 083° 38.138'

Edited January 4, 2017 by mblatch