Changing a date on a historic cache (GC2DBE)

[cezanne]

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?

 

Some usenet groups for example.

 

However, "placed on" is not the same as "published" anyway. I have caches which I have hidden before starting the cache page and sometimes I started a cache page and have hidden the cache months later. With my last cache which I hid on November 1 it finally was quite a tight race whether I would send it for publication this year before the snow or would wait until spring next year.

 

I know of quite a number of caches which are physically out there but where the cache owners have not yet found the motivation to start a cache page for the write up.

[+KBLAST]

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'

https://www.geocaching.com/about/history.aspx

Specifically: "Within the first month, Mike Teague, the first person to find Ulmer's stash, began gathering the online posts of coordinates around the world and documenting them on his personal home page."

 

When this first started, people were posting stuff all over the place (at least, that's the impression I get).

 

Yes, it was formalized in September of 2000, but who knows what drove Mr. Fackleman and Mr. Robinette? Maybe they didn't discover the website for a while. Maybe they just posted it on a newsletter or some news listing site. Maybe they just told their friends about it. Maybe they had a problem with the term "Geocaching" and steered clear of it for a year until they realized it was the direction the hobby was going. Lots of unanswered questions that have been the cause of controversy in the Ohio geocaching community for some time (well - at least for people who care about the history of Ohio geocaching, like me).

 

I PERSONALLY have believed that it was hidden in December of 2001 since I first started researching, but the fact that Mr. Fackleman and Mr. Robinette are fighting to keep the January placed date is making me reconsider that stance.

 

No matter what - the only thing I stand STRONGLY by is my disappointment in the few who have been mean and blown this whole thing out of proportion. I can understand people being upset, like I said before... I just wish people were able to handle things more civilly.

[+Backwoods Reviewer]

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".

 

As the reviewer who's home coordinates are closer to "Ancient Lake" than any other, I would like to firmly state that it wasn't me who changed the date.

 

As a player, It killed my "almost finished" Fizzy, but I still think the date should be corrected. As a reviewer, I have no opinion.

[+dprovan]

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.

I don't think I have to tell them. I think they already know about it. Yes, it's true, they're griping and moaning about it being changed, but that's because they're having trouble seeing that what they should be griping and moaning about is that it was wrong to begin with.

 

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.

Nothing about this has anything whatsoever to do with the challenge cache "system". The cause is a challenge based on a date that can be changed. Blaming "the system" for that is like blaming the system for a cache that's "too hard to find".

 

Personally I think all these stats should be based on "Published date" because that isn't subject to manipulation.

COs were free to use the published date if they wanted. The published date is a harder to look up on the web, though, so that's a significant trade off that needs to be weighed against the advantage of the date being fixed. After all, as much excitement as this one example is causing, a cache's placed-by date doesn't normally ever change. I seriously doubt all the angst produced by this one example comes anywhere near outweighing all the time saved because people can look up the placed-by date without scrolling to the very end of the log.

[Keystone]

Personally I think all these stats should be based on "Published date" because that isn't subject to manipulation.

COs were free to use the published date if they wanted. The published date is a harder to look up on the web, though, so that's a significant trade off that needs to be weighed against the advantage of the date being fixed. After all, as much excitement as this one example is causing, a cache's placed-by date doesn't normally ever change. I seriously doubt all the angst produced by this one example comes anywhere near outweighing all the time saved because people can look up the placed-by date without scrolling to the very end of the log.

In this regard, it's worth a reminder that the "Published" log wasn't introduced until July 28th, 2005, in connection with the introduction of the instant notifications feature. So, "published date" is of no help to caches that predate that feature, such as "Ancient Lake."

 

As a reviewer, I can tell which reviewer published those older caches (erik88l-r published "Ancient Lake") but I cannot tell the date. As a result of the late introduction of the "Published" log, my "Reviewers Challenge" statistics are adversely affected because there's no public record for the publishing reviewer. (But, I don't post a "Needs Archived" log on all the caches published before July 28th, 2005, because they mess with my Reviewer Challenge statistics.)

[+timoteo283]

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

 

I'm getting even more of a kick out of Keystone's response to the NA.

[+J Grouchy]

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

 

People taking whole vacations just to fill a square on a grid? People posting irate messages because of a date?

 

Sometimes it seems like Jasmer chasers are from a different planet.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

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'

Check out the history of how geocaching came to be. Both Usenet and personal web pages are mentioned. Geocaching the activity started in May, 2000. Geocaching.com, the web site, didn't start until Sept 2000. I imagine that it took a while for the word to get out that there was a site that was trying to gather together all geocache information into a single location. This could be a cache that was placed Jan 2001, but the CO's didn't find out about geocaching.com until Dec 2001. Back then, search engines were nowhere near as sophisticated as they are today (anyone remember webcrawler). The listing could have been posted to a bulletin board system, or other non-html accessible system.

[+bflentje]

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

 

People taking whole vacations just to fill a square on a grid? People posting irate messages because of a date?

 

Sometimes it seems like Jasmer chasers are from a different planet.

 

Eh, I chase the Jasmer. But I was smart enough to find seven 1/2001 caches and five 12/2001 caches

[+SwineFlew]

When you die, the Jasmer thing doesnt matter.

 

The most important thing that should matter in your life is to have fun. The rest is white noise.

[+Dame Deco]

Well, what if some folks think the Jasmer is fun? Why do you act like those are mutually exclusive thing?

[+J Grouchy]

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

 

People taking whole vacations just to fill a square on a grid? People posting irate messages because of a date?

 

Sometimes it seems like Jasmer chasers are from a different planet.

 

Eh, I chase the Jasmer. But I was smart enough to find seven 1/2001 caches and five 12/2001 caches

 

I'll go ahead and change the dates of all my caches to 1/2001 so you all have a chance to fill your squares and be happy.

[+Mudfrog]

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

 

People taking whole vacations just to fill a square on a grid? People posting irate messages because of a date?

 

Sometimes it seems like Jasmer chasers are from a different planet.

 

Eh, I chase the Jasmer. But I was smart enough to find seven 1/2001 caches and five 12/2001 caches

 

I'll go ahead and change the dates of all my caches to 1/2001 so you all have a chance to fill your squares and be happy.

 

Some of your caches better be hidden near me. If not, then i'm gonna cry foul and do some pouting of my own!

[+colleda]

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

 

People taking whole vacations just to fill a square on a grid? People posting irate messages because of a date?

 

Sometimes it seems like Jasmer chasers are from a different planet.

Agreed.

I don't understand such angst. What if, hypothetically, the CO decided to archive and remove the cache (for whatever reason) just before they arrived. Would these irate cachers then berate the CO and demand compensation? Maybe log it anyway for their trouble? This is a risk we all take when we set off on a search regardless of the distance. After all its just a game.

[+narcissa]

Well, what if some folks think the Jasmer is fun? Why do you act like those are mutually exclusive thing?

 

Is it fun if the Jasmer achievement is based on falsified or incorrect information? Is it meaningful?

[+J Grouchy]

Well, what if some folks think the Jasmer is fun? Why do you act like those are mutually exclusive thing?

 

Is it fun if the Jasmer achievement is based on falsified or incorrect information? Is it meaningful?

 

I imagine if it means they can claim one of their few remaining open months, then yes...to them it is "meaningful".

[+redsox_mark]

 

Is it fun if the Jasmer achievement is based on falsified or incorrect information? Is it meaningful?

 

Interesting question. I've not worked specifically on Jasmer, but I've worked on lots of challenges. For me, in general for challenge caches, the fun is identifying the caches which meet the criteria and finding them. If for example I seek out a specific D/T rating, and I find the cache but I think the rating is incorrect, it doesn't take the fun away. I sought out that cache based on the information I had, and I found it. (I know D/T ratings are somewhat subjective so it is slightly different).

 

If I had sought out this cache to fill a Jasmer entry, then later the date changed, I'd be disappointed. I wouldn't make fuss, but also I wouldn't think "I'm glad the date changed, as my achievement was really false, and I didn't know.".

[+GO Geiger]

Well, what if some folks think the Jasmer is fun? Why do you act like those are mutually exclusive thing?

 

Is it fun if the Jasmer achievement is based on falsified or incorrect information? Is it meaningful?

 

I imagine if it means they can claim one of their few remaining open months, then yes...to them it is "meaningful".

 

We went after the Jasmer challenge (finally completing it by finding Tarryall in July). I think the majority of cachers don't know about the date controversy with Ancient Lake, so as such, they were more than a bit surprised by the sudden change. I can also see, if they spent time and money just to fill the grid square, how they could be upset. There was also a lot of over-reaction in my opinion. It's a box in the woods, albeit a particularly long-lived one.

 

However... when I first came upon this thread, I alerted my wife to the date change. After a quick PQ (well, not so quick, as we had to choose EVERY state individually), we found 3 or 4 1/2001 caches within a day's drive. Ultimate outcome - we decided we needed a Spring Break road trip with the kids to re-fill the square (and see SE NY and parts of New England again and maybe complete the Doctor Who series at Vassar College). We may still go, even though technically we don't "need" that square any more. (Now, this all could have been avoided had the kids wanted to make the hike to "Log Cabin" when we were in the Rockies over the summer...)

 

So, I agree that since it was something people felt a sense of accomplishment about (with or without knowing about the date controversy - after all, they have no control over what the CO chooses to list on the page), then to them it is meaningful.

 

Somewhat tangential question - since "Date Placed" is something the CO has control over, it is something that can easily be used as an element in a puzzle cache. What is stopping anyone from setting up a bogus Jasmer-filler date if it is legitimately part of the puzzle? (Or an older date, for example 12/6/1941 if it is a WW II-related puzzle.) I haven't seen any obviously bogus dates on puzzle caches which use the "date hidden" field that fall within the last 16 years, but perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

[+J Grouchy]

I actually HAVE lied on my 'date placed' on at least one cache. I had my own reason for doing so, one I think is a valid reason. Now, none of mine probably really count towards anyone's Jasmer or other date-challenge statistics, but just knowing how easy it is to falsify or change such a statistic renders such challenges - FOR ME - completely meaningless. I stress the "for me" because I know many people take such things seriously. But just knowing that I can't honestly rely on such information to be accurate, information the CO can alter on any given day, means I can never really take challenges that count on such things seriously.

[+thebruce0]

When you die, the Jasmer thing doesnt matter.

Nor does the fact that you found a bunch of cheap containers in the woods. Your point?

 

The most important thing that should matter in your life is to have fun. The rest is white noise.

Until someone else decides that your fun is irrelevant and stomps on it.

 

If I had sought out this cache to fill a Jasmer entry, then later the date changed, I'd be disappointed. I wouldn't make fuss, but also I wouldn't think "I'm glad the date changed, as my achievement was really false, and I didn't know.".

Ditto on that.

 

If my goal for a caching trip were to find the actual oldest cache, then that experience wouldn't change, if I knew that what I found actually was the oldest cache. The problem then, is what if I find out later that another cache is actually older? Was my prior experience ruined? I'd likely think bah, I don't actually have the oldest cache, I have to find this one now! How is that practically different than this problem other than that it's an arbitrary date field?

 

So if my goal for a caching trip were to find the oldest "placed date" cache, then that experience likewise wouldn't change, unless another cache is discovered/altered to have the oldest date. Who knows. At that point I'm not desiring the "oldest cache", I am (should be, technically) desiring "oldest date". So I'm not concerned in this case about the accuracy of what the date represents. So if it's changed arbitrarily, I'll be a lot more upset; as opposed to the goal of finding the actual oldest cache which isn't arbitrary (one has to have existed before the other).

 

Perhaps the nature of this upset is merely because the Placed Date is arbitrary.

Even so, challenges are a real, official thing now, and so it must be expected that cache properties which change affecting people's goals (whatever they may be) will have a negative affect on portions of the community.

 

Don't denigrate people just because of that fact.

 

Similar effects happen when a D/T changes after a time... however, D and T are relevant to current and active cache-finding conditions. A Placed Date is not.

And I think people as adamant about accurate historicity (on an arbitrary field) despite challenge cachers' opinions are be being just as childish as they say people are who are upset over the date change "because numbers".

 

All that said, I like an accurate history too. But it's been 15 years. Challenges are big now. The change was bound to upset a huge segment of the community, especially given the nature of the change. I don't really know/care which date is kept (though it's been changed back), but while I think it's an inherent risk with challenges that complainers should have been ready for, it's also petty to denigrate those who put a lot of value in the cache date because of a challenge goal for which they may be striving head over feet, in what they consider to be a fun element of the hobby.

[+thebruce0]

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.

The irony.

 

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.

Nothing about this has anything whatsoever to do with the challenge cache "system". The cause is a challenge based on a date that can be changed. Blaming "the system" for that is like blaming the system for a cache that's "too hard to find".

Exactly.

On one hand, people doing the challenges have to realize that some properties can change. On the other hand, challenges now being officialized, changes like this should be expected to have at least a little more significance and weight than before, especially if it's a change after so long, being so rare, affecting an increasingly difficult and extremely popular challenge concept.

 

COs were free to use the published date if they wanted. The published date is a harder to look up on the web, though, so that's a significant trade off that needs to be weighed against the advantage of the date being fixed. After all, as much excitement as this one example is causing, a cache's placed-by date doesn't normally ever change. I seriously doubt all the angst produced by this one example comes anywhere near outweighing all the time saved because people can look up the placed-by date without scrolling to the very end of the log.

I seem to recall a while back GS saying they were working on having the Published Date be a retrievable value in the listing data. I wonder how far that feature's come along...

 

Somewhat tangential question - since "Date Placed" is something the CO has control over, it is something that can easily be used as an element in a puzzle cache. What is stopping anyone from setting up a bogus Jasmer-filler date if it is legitimately part of the puzzle? (Or an older date, for example 12/6/1941 if it is a WW II-related puzzle.) I haven't seen any obviously bogus dates on puzzle caches which use the "date hidden" field that fall within the last 16 years, but perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

Yep, there was a puzzle in my region that relied on an old date placed like that. Don't think it exists any more though, and can't remember which it was.

[+bflentje]

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

 

People taking whole vacations just to fill a square on a grid? People posting irate messages because of a date?

 

Sometimes it seems like Jasmer chasers are from a different planet.

 

Eh, I chase the Jasmer. But I was smart enough to find seven 1/2001 caches and five 12/2001 caches

 

I'll go ahead and change the dates of all my caches to 1/2001 so you all have a chance to fill your squares and be happy.

 

All of my squares are good. And if it happens that 12 caches get their placed dates changed, my life goes on.. without whining.

[+bflentje]

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.

The irony.

 

No, not quite. But you can think that if you like.

[+J Grouchy]

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.

I don't think I have to tell them. I think they already know about it. Yes, it's true, they're griping and moaning about it being changed, but that's because they're having trouble seeing that what they should be griping and moaning about is that it was wrong to begin with.

 

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.

Nothing about this has anything whatsoever to do with the challenge cache "system". The cause is a challenge based on a date that can be changed. Blaming "the system" for that is like blaming the system for a cache that's "too hard to find".

 

First, who is "blaming the system"? I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the system. My desire to participate or not is nothing to anyone and, again, I don't understand why you feel the need to overinflate the intent of my comments.

 

As for the first part of your comment, ff the "system" bases a statistic on something that can change at the whim of the CO, then yes, it absolutely does. If geocachers must rely on hard data to fulfill a requirement and the source of that hard data relies on something that I, as a CO, can change at any given moment, then complaints and disputes are inevitable. Such disputes were a main reason for calling a halt to challenges, no?

[+Pine and Poplar]

Somewhat tangential question - since "Date Placed" is something the CO has control over, it is something that can easily be used as an element in a puzzle cache. What is stopping anyone from setting up a bogus Jasmer-filler date if it is legitimately part of the puzzle? (Or an older date, for example 12/6/1941 if it is a WW II-related puzzle.) I haven't seen any obviously bogus dates on puzzle caches which use the "date hidden" field that fall within the last 16 years, but perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

Yep, there was a puzzle in my region that relied on an old date placed like that. Don't think it exists any more though, and can't remember which it was.

I don't think Groundspeak likes caches listed with placed dates that are obviously false. There was a tribute cache that was published in MN last spring with a placed date in 1980 (or the date was changed to that after publication). After the reviewer was notified, the reviewer changed the hidden date to match the published date.

 

I'm guessing they wouldn't let a cache get through publication with an obviously false placed date, even if they did at point in the past.

[+thebruce0]

I don't think Groundspeak likes caches listed with placed dates that are obviously false. There was a tribute cache that was published in MN last spring with a placed date in 1980 (or the date was changed to that after publication). After the reviewer was notified, the reviewer changed the hidden date to match the published date.

 

I'm guessing they wouldn't let a cache get through publication with an obviously false placed date, even if they did at point in the past.

 

Agreed. Mainly, I think, because it's misleading. Listing attributes should be accurate to what the properties' definitions imply. Other values are essentially a misuse if intentional. I'd also prefer those to be accurate where possible

[+GO Geiger]

I don't think Groundspeak likes caches listed with placed dates that are obviously false. There was a tribute cache that was published in MN last spring with a placed date in 1980 (or the date was changed to that after publication). After the reviewer was notified, the reviewer changed the hidden date to match the published date.

 

I'm guessing they wouldn't let a cache get through publication with an obviously false placed date, even if they did at point in the past.

 

Agreed. Mainly, I think, because it's misleading. Listing attributes should be accurate to what the properties' definitions imply. Other values are essentially a misuse if intentional. I'd also prefer those to be accurate where possible

 

I used to have a Doctor Who themed traditional that had a placed date of November 23, 1963 (it was placed to more or less coincide with the show's 50th anniversary).

 

I can't find anything in the guidelines or knowledge base that specifically prohibits bogus placed dates (but then I don't find anything that encourages it, either).

 

If there is an official stance on this (since there are already puzzles that depend on the 'date placed' field as part of their solution and there's no reason to think there won't be in the future), maybe some one could weigh in on that?

[+LightHouseSeekers]

Odd that HQ doesn't know who made the date changes on the listing.

 

Would be helpful if the original CO verified the placement date.

 

A brief note from the adoptee (current CO)on the cache listing clarifying date would be nice also.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Odd that HQ doesn't know who made the date changes on the listing.

 

Would be helpful if the original CO verified the placement date.

 

A brief note from the adoptee (current CO)on the cache listing clarifying date would be nice also.

 

It's not in the best interests of any of those parties to do so.

 

HQ must know who 'did it', but they're not going to name the individual for his or her own protection. Plus, if it was someone AT HQ, then it would spark a separate #@&%%&$ about "unilateral changes / listing service / CO owns the listing / don't touch my stuff / I'd leave if they did it to me / get off my lawn" and a host of other, um, concerns.

 

The original CO and the adoptee adopter have already weighed in and the original date has been restored. Beyond that, they're not going to offer an opinion as to which date should be used because of the contentious nature of the debate. They both cared enough to address the issue; good for them.

 

-----

 

I think it's pretty clear what the actual date SHOULD HAVE been, based on the forensic evidence offered above. It was a fat-finger error, for goodness' sake! "1/23" as opposed to "12/23"! But, the fact is that it's been January, 2001 all this time, and a lot of people have played that date in good faith in the 'Challenge' portion of the hobby, which is consequential to THEM.

 

If this date discrepancy were between, say, 4/10/2012 and 12/10/2012 (meaning not a tremendous timespan and not near the GC 'origin date') no one would really care. We'd all rather that the dates be accurate, but OK, this one's wrong, and we'd all get over it because making it accurate would mess up a lot of players' stats, and even though I don't care about those stats, I know that some of my fellow players do, and therefore I'm willing to rein in my OCD-like "BAD DATA" outrage and ...

 

...just let this one go.

 

In the future, if you see a Challenge that uses the Placement Date, contact the CO and suggest that that it be changed to the Publish Date.

 

-----

 

Edited to fix the "Adoptee / Adopter" thing from the post to which I replied..

Edited January 5, 2017 by TeamRabbitRun

[+thebruce0]

*applause*

[+dprovan]

First, who is "blaming the system"? I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the system.

If you considering something about the system a flaw and claim that flaw causes problems, I call that "blaming the system".

 

As for the first part of your comment, ff the "system" bases a statistic on something that can change at the whim of the CO, then yes, it absolutely does.

Again, the system doesn't base anything on anything. Challenge cache owners base their challenge caches on what they want (well, they used to until most things were prohibited), so it's a feature of the challenge cache if what the challenge is based on can change, it's not a feature of "the system".

[+KingAFK]

Seems like most people agree, the date should be the correct December 2001..

 

Unfortunately the date has been changed once again.