Jump to content

Placement ban due to Divisiveness?


Followers 11

Recommended Posts

Notice the post doesn't show who sent the email. It refers to "Geocaching HQ", but I thought geocaching.com referred to their offices by the company name i.e. "Groundspeak HQ"? No announcement of this new initiative on the newsletter or website that I've seen. I strongly suspect it's fake.

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

Notice the post doesn't show who sent the email. It refers to "Geocaching HQ", but I thought geocaching.com referred to their offices by the company name i.e. "Groundspeak HQ"? No announcement of this new initiative on the newsletter or website that I've seen. I strongly suspect it's fake.

Perhaps, but Cindy is real...

Link to comment

Notice the post doesn't show who sent the email. It refers to "Geocaching HQ", but I thought geocaching.com referred to their offices by the company name i.e. "Groundspeak HQ"? No announcement of this new initiative on the newsletter or website that I've seen. I strongly suspect it's fake.

The sign off is that of a well known Lackey/Director at HQ, so I suspect it is legitimate. If not, this thread would be quickly squashed for spreading erroneous information and posing as a Groundspeak employee.

 

The only issue I have with it is the characterization as an "initiative". To me, it sounds like your run of the mill TOU violation and suspension of services of someone that apparently doesn't play well with others.

Link to comment

Notice the post doesn't show who sent the email. It refers to "Geocaching HQ", but I thought geocaching.com referred to their offices by the company name i.e. "Groundspeak HQ"? No announcement of this new initiative on the newsletter or website that I've seen. I strongly suspect it's fake.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/profile/?id=3509602

 

Post #9:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=342328

 

B.

Link to comment

Notice the post doesn't show who sent the email. It refers to "Geocaching HQ", but I thought geocaching.com referred to their offices by the company name i.e. "Groundspeak HQ"? No announcement of this new initiative on the newsletter or website that I've seen. I strongly suspect it's fake.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/profile/?id=3509602

 

Post #9:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=342328

 

B.

 

Yes, as I said above. The title listed is also the one she uses on Linked-In

 

edited to add: still does not prove authenticity but if it is not then somebody gonna be in a heap of hot gas :lol:

Edited by Michaelcycle
Link to comment

I don't do Facebook, so can't log in to see the context of the posting.

 

Is that an email that someone received from Groundspeak HQ?

 

Is this new policy posted somewhere that all can read it without logging into some private site?

 

B.

The only context you will find at present is that hider has 2000+ hides, with no red wrenches (as claimed on facebook). The facebook group is focusing in on the gall of Groundspeak to single out someone who, to them, has no issues with their hides. The "divisiveness" aspect has not been related in any meaningful fashion. Of course, there is much back story to be discovered that goes beyond having a lot of hides.

 

I wonder if the hider is a carpet bomber in an area with other active hiders?

Edited by fbingha
Link to comment

I don't do Facebook, so can't log in to see the context of the posting.

 

I'm in the (public) Facebook group in question ... the images were originally posted there without any context.

 

Later in the discussion, the original poster states that he's a member of a private Facebook group where the recipient posted the copy of the message he received. The original recipient was not identified by name.

 

Even later in the discussion, someone else suggests the name of a cacher who was likely the original recipient. I will not repeat the name, because I don't have confirmation of the person's identity. However, I looked up his profile online. The named person has over 32,000 finds, but also has over 2,000 active caches.

Link to comment

If any of these are bogus there's a good chance of an official statement to that effect. If the actions are real probably nothing will be said. I cannot recall HQ calling anyone out publicly. Discipline is typically administered privately but the person being disciplined sometimes chooses to brag about it.

Link to comment
Can we nominate people for this list? We have a couple of people with hundreds of crappy and/or unmaintained caches.

+1 :)

+2. Too many for-the-numbers addicted hiders. Too many unmaintained caches in cheap (free) not suitable containers. My area is saturated by a handful of cachers that plant 50+. On average 100+. One has over 1000+ hides, encourages throwdowns, and tells people to log finds on his caches that have gone missing.

Link to comment
We strongly believe geocache hiding should not be a numbers game.
Emphasis added.

 

Oh, there's hope! cool.gif

 

Could it be that our benevolent overlords will ban power trails again?

 

Could it be they've figured out the ingredient that spoiled the secret sauce?

From your lips to their ears!

 

By the way, the most prolific cache hiders have hidden over 23,000 caches!!

Link to comment
We strongly believe geocache hiding should not be a numbers game.
Emphasis added.

 

Oh, there's hope! cool.gif

 

Could it be that our benevolent overlords will ban power trails again?

 

Could it be they've figured out the ingredient that spoiled the secret sauce?

I had a strong feeling the posting was fake when i read that part. Of course i would love to see my feeling be proved wrong. ;)

Link to comment

If this is real then I don't understand why there wouldn't have been at least a blog post about the "new focus on geocache quality and health for 2017."

I can confirm that Geocaching HQ is focusing on geocache quality and health in 2017. There may be more said about this by HQ in the future. I would not draw too many conclusions from this (hopefully) rare example of private user discipline in the form of a placement ban.

Link to comment

If this is real then I don't understand why there wouldn't have been at least a blog post about the "new focus on geocache quality and health for 2017."

I can confirm that Geocaching HQ is focusing on geocache quality and health in 2017. There may be more said about this by HQ in the future. I would not draw too many conclusions from this (hopefully) rare example of private user discipline in the form of a placement ban.

 

In the FB group I referenced above, the cacher who had received this has only 4 active caches, none of which require maintenance, and has only 10 old archived caches, so he seems a strange choice to be a recipient of this. Also it was his local reviewer who first said this was fake, so he clearly knew nothing about this initiative.

 

It seems like another bodged implmentation, maybe GS should be focusing on their own quality in 2017 <_<

Link to comment

I can confirm that Geocaching HQ is focusing on geocache quality and health in 2017.

 

Bravo! B)

 

There may be more said about this by HQ in the future.

 

I do hope so. It would be good to raise the bar through sharing new standards in a positive way rather than through trying, as I think someone else said, to close the stable door long after the horse has bolted.

 

I would not draw too many conclusions from this (hopefully) rare example of private user discipline in the form of a placement ban.

 

Then it would seem to me that an official announcement by Groundspeak is the best way forward.

Link to comment
We strongly believe geocache hiding should not be a numbers game.
Emphasis added.

 

Oh, there's hope! cool.gif

 

Could it be that our benevolent overlords will ban power trails again?

 

Could it be they've figured out the ingredient that spoiled the secret sauce?

I certainly hope that 'power trails' will be allowed. Granted some are cheap, but yet there are many that like them. I have two PT's that are truly on trails, with 50 or more caches on each. They are sponsored by the local county tourism person to help draw attention to the rails-to-trails, the local barn quilts and the fact that part of one trail is also part of a National Scenic Trail (Ice Age National Scenic Trail). As more barn quilts are placed in the county, I expand the series to include them.

Link to comment

I certainly hope that 'power trails' will be allowed. Granted some are cheap, but yet there are many that like them. I have two PT's that are truly on trails, with 50 or more caches on each. They are sponsored by the local county tourism person to help draw attention to the rails-to-trails, the local barn quilts and the fact that part of one trail is also part of a National Scenic Trail (Ice Age National Scenic Trail). As more barn quilts are placed in the county, I expand the series to include them.

 

To me, powertrails are those 1000 pill bottles along a guard rail on a busy highway. Not 50 caches along a rails to trails, but most of those type caches I have placed have time limits and have a land manager. :)

Link to comment

The only context you will find at present is that hider has 2000+ hides, with no red wrenches (as claimed on facebook). The facebook group is focusing in on the gall of Groundspeak to single out someone who, to them, has no issues with their hides.

 

"no red wrenches" does not equate to "no issues with their hides".

As I understand it, power trails rarely get NM logs because, frankly, none of the finders actually CARE about the quality or condition. Throwdowns are the common response and, in the event a NM log is posted, the CO would generally OM log it and just assume the next PT cacher will do his or her job by replacing it. Honestly, I'm more suspicious of 2000+ hides with zero red wrenches than I would be if a few were in need on any given day.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment
We strongly believe geocache hiding should not be a numbers game.
Emphasis added.

 

Oh, there's hope! cool.gif

 

Could it be that our benevolent overlords will ban power trails again?

 

Could it be they've figured out the ingredient that spoiled the secret sauce?

I certainly hope that 'power trails' will be allowed. Granted some are cheap, but yet there are many that like them. I have two PT's that are truly on trails, with 50 or more caches on each. They are sponsored by the local county tourism person to help draw attention to the rails-to-trails, the local barn quilts and the fact that part of one trail is also part of a National Scenic Trail (Ice Age National Scenic Trail). As more barn quilts are placed in the county, I expand the series to include them.

 

The thing that worries me about this sudden new interest in Quality is who is the judge? I'll go out on a limb here and say for the record I often feel Geocaching.com takes things from the game and leaves rules in their place. I'd wager everyone could read that statement and think of something they wish hadn't been handled in a particular way.

 

Regarding Power Trails I believe I had an epiphany at the Geowoodstock in Carnation, Washington - Geocaching means different things to each player. Some are all about the numbers of finds. Some are all about the geocoins. Some are all about the social aspect of the game. Some are all about travel, exploration, getting out and seeing the world with Geocache hiders as their guides. Some are all about cracking devious puzzles. Some are all about creating fantastically creative hides. Some are all about hosting events. It goes on and on and there are degrees of each which appeal in combination. I urge caution in attempting to define how the game should be.

 

Decisions are handed down, sometimes in what I'd consider overly blunt means. I'm hoping this approach is used very sparingly and with good sense, particularly after exhausting attempts to resolve the dispute amicably.

Link to comment

I certainly hope that 'power trails' will be allowed. Granted some are cheap, but yet there are many that like them. I have two PT's that are truly on trails, with 50 or more caches on each. They are sponsored by the local county tourism person to help draw attention to the rails-to-trails, the local barn quilts and the fact that part of one trail is also part of a National Scenic Trail (Ice Age National Scenic Trail). As more barn quilts are placed in the county, I expand the series to include them.

 

To me, powertrails are those 1000 pill bottles along a guard rail on a busy highway. Not 50 caches along a rails to trails, but most of those type caches I have placed have time limits and have a land manager. :)

I have had great land managers over the years with these. They are on Wisconsin DNR land and we are pre-approved on DNR land and then just notify them with a form. When I placed the first 100, I only was asked to file out 2 forms (one for each trail) and then supply a list of the caches. These guys have become my best friends when it come to me placing a cache. I highly recommend getting to know the LM and build a good relationship.

 

[back on subject] Too many pill bottles along miles of guard rails can be too much. Not seeing a official newsletter or something else from the frog tends to make you wonder about this!

Link to comment

The thing that worries me about this sudden new interest in Quality is who is the judge?

 

I reckon that in this context Quality means little more than a properly maintained cache in a sensible location. I think we can all judge what that looks like with a negligible amount of effort.

 

I'll go out on a limb here and say for the record I often feel Geocaching.com takes things from the game and leaves rules in their place.

 

I'll go out on a limb and say for the record that I often feel some cachers take expectations of a fun and rewarding experience from the game and leave junk and disappointment in their place and complain when people aren't grateful for it.

 

I urge caution in attempting to define how the game should be.

 

Things it shouldn't be:

 

  • Entire regions land-locked with low-grade / unmaintained caches which stifle placements by newer / more creative cachers
  • Abandoned caches left to rot or propped up for years with junky throw-downs for the sake of just one more smiley
  • Apathy in the community arising from the race to the bottom
  • Carpet-bombing cachers who believe that an appropriate response to justified Needs Maintenance log is trantrums and abuse

 

If placement restrictions can help to turn these things around, if it's not already too late, then I'm all for them B)

Link to comment

The thing that worries me about this sudden new interest in Quality is who is the judge?

 

I reckon that in this context Quality means little more than a properly maintained cache in a sensible location. I think we can all judge what that looks like with a negligible amount of effort.

 

The issue I have is who defines properly, sensible location or even quality container. We all have our own standards. Some are very high while others are very low, expectations vary on the individual.

 

I'll go out on a limb here and say for the record I often feel Geocaching.com takes things from the game and leaves rules in their place.

 

I'll go out on a limb and say for the record that I often feel some cachers take expectations of a fun and rewarding experience from the game and leave junk and disappointment in their place and complain when people aren't grateful for it.

 

 

Again, subjective expectations.

 

 

I urge caution in attempting to define how the game should be.

 

Things it shouldn't be:

 

  • Entire regions land-locked with low-grade / unmaintained caches which stifle placements by newer / more creative cachers
  • Abandoned caches left to rot or propped up for years with junky throw-downs for the sake of just one more smiley
  • Apathy in the community arising from the race to the bottom
  • Carpet-bombing cachers who believe that an appropriate response to justified Needs Maintenance log is trantrums and abuse

 

If placement restrictions can help to turn these things around, if it's not already too late, then I'm all for them B)

 

I see an area to the north of me, which I considered very densely packed, exposing openings on a regular basis. There are locations which change hands, but perhaps not fast enough to satisfy everyone.

 

Some of the worst abandoned caches I see are left by scout troops - they get their Merit badge and never come back. To think this through a bit, the scout pack probably doesn't often visit the same location - kids grow up and move on. These seem to be the most destined caches to linger on in neglect. Most experienced cachers around me respond well to a message or even a Needs Maint.

 

Apathy? On who's part? This is a sweeping generality as well as a condemnation of geocachers.

 

I presume by carpet bombing you mean long power trails or dense cache placement. Bear in mind some areas love this as it brings a lot of travelers into their locale - further, many travelers seek these out. Don't be harsh on how some people choose to play the game. It means different things to different people, respect that.

Edited by DragonsWest
Link to comment

The thing that worries me about this sudden new interest in Quality is who is the judge?

 

I reckon that in this context Quality means little more than a properly maintained cache in a sensible location. I think we can all judge what that looks like with a negligible amount of effort.

 

The issue I have is who defines properly, sensible location or even quality container. We all have our own standards. Some are very high while others are very low, expectations vary on the individual.

 

This post is circular. Please read until it sinks in :)

Link to comment

I'll go out on a limb here and say for the record I often feel Geocaching.com takes things from the game and leaves rules in their place.

 

I'll go out on a limb and say for the record that I often feel some cachers take expectations of a fun and rewarding experience from the game and leave junk and disappointment in their place and complain when people aren't grateful for it.

 

 

Again, subjective expectations.

 

Yes - we both have subjective expectations and we've both voiced them here.

 

Was there some point you were trying to make?

Link to comment

Some of the worst abandoned caches I see are left by scout troops - they get their Merit badge and never come back. To think this through a bit, the scout pack probably doesn't often visit the same location - kids grow up and move on. These seem to be the most destined caches to linger on in neglect. Most experienced cachers around me respond well to a message or even a Needs Maint.

 

Apathy? On who's part? This is a sweeping generality as well as a condemnation of geocachers.

 

Sorry - I don't have a list of geocachers in my area who are currently experiencing apathy so yes - it's a generality. I'm not sure which geocachers you think I'm condemning althoug it's fun to note your sweeping generality and condemnation of scout troops and their activities :laughing:

 

Don't be harsh on how some people choose to play the game. It means different things to different people, respect that.

 

Which brings us back to square one - just let everyone do whatever they want and forget about having any standards or expectations of any kind, the sort of thinking that accelerates the race to the bottom at an ever increasing rate and the logical equivalent of a nosedive into the ground.

Link to comment

I'll go out on a limb here and say for the record I often feel Geocaching.com takes things from the game and leaves rules in their place.

 

I'll go out on a limb and say for the record that I often feel some cachers take expectations of a fun and rewarding experience from the game and leave junk and disappointment in their place and complain when people aren't grateful for it.

 

 

Again, subjective expectations.

 

Yes - we both have subjective expectations and we've both voiced them here.

 

Was there some point you were trying to make?

 

Yes, do not evaluate what everyone expectations must be based upon your own. Some people are perfectly happy with the way the game is.

 

All of this is largely in reply to your generalizations and assumptions, the sort of things I was punished for in college composition courses.

 

I do not believe any of this addresses a "Devisiveness" trait of a cacher - that seems to still be a complete mystery, despite some of the speculations and assertions in posts above. Without facts we may only have assumptions.

Edited by DragonsWest
Link to comment

I'll go out on a limb here and say for the record I often feel Geocaching.com takes things from the game and leaves rules in their place.

 

I'll go out on a limb and say for the record that I often feel some cachers take expectations of a fun and rewarding experience from the game and leave junk and disappointment in their place and complain when people aren't grateful for it.

 

 

Again, subjective expectations.

 

Yes - we both have subjective expectations and we've both voiced them here.

 

Was there some point you were trying to make?

 

Yes, do not evaluate what everyone expectations must be based upon your own. Some people are perfectly happy with the way the game is.

 

All of this is largely in reply to your generalizations and assumptions, the sort of things I was punished for in college composition courses.

 

 

I'm not so sure those punishments had a positive impact.

 

College should really have pulled you on the idea that your own generalisations and assumptions are more valid and acceptable than everyone elses :o

Link to comment

I'll go out on a limb here and say for the record I often feel Geocaching.com takes things from the game and leaves rules in their place.

 

I'll go out on a limb and say for the record that I often feel some cachers take expectations of a fun and rewarding experience from the game and leave junk and disappointment in their place and complain when people aren't grateful for it.

 

 

Again, subjective expectations.

 

Yes - we both have subjective expectations and we've both voiced them here.

 

Was there some point you were trying to make?

 

Yes, do not evaluate what everyone expectations must be based upon your own. Some people are perfectly happy with the way the game is.

 

All of this is largely in reply to your generalizations and assumptions, the sort of things I was punished for in college composition courses.

 

 

I'm not so sure those punishments had a positive impact.

 

College should really have pulled you on the idea that your own generalisations and assumptions are more valid and acceptable than everyone elses :o

 

I think you are going to have your attitude on this and I'll have mine - however, we are (both of us) dragging this thread away from the topic when we assail college performance - do you think that is constructive?

 

I'm eager to see what these Quality and Health guidelines are and how they are likely to impact the game. The game is the players, not the business, which makes business decisions.

Link to comment

I'm eager to see what these Quality and Health guidelines are and how they are likely to impact the game. The game is the players, not the business, which makes business decisions.

 

It's also true that there are players that make the game unpleasant for other players. Some of those "business decisions" involve trying to manage those conflicts for the greater good. And, as we all know, it only takes a small number of people to foul the pool for everyone else who just wants a pleasant place to swin.

 

Believe it or not, it's in the best interest of Groundspeak to keep most of its players happy, so that they'll keep spending money. This doesn't have to be about the business "versus" the players.

 

I'm actually not expecting to see these "Quality and Health Guidelines" published. I think there are a very small number of troublemakers that Groundspeak is trying to address directly. There's an old saying that "bad cases make bad law"; trying to address the problems of these very small number of troublemakers with a published policy might be counter-productive. Far better to say "hey, you, Team Hugs, quit @#$!ing in the pool or we're giving you a timeout", as appears to have happened here.

 

Let's not overreact to one person being butt-hurt and publishing their hurt across the Internet as a sign of the Apocalypse.

 

Link to comment

I'm eager to see what these Quality and Health guidelines are and how they are likely to impact the game. The game is the players, not the business, which makes business decisions.

 

It's also true that there are players that make the game unpleasant for other players. Some of those "business decisions" involve trying to manage those conflicts for the greater good. And, as we all know, it only takes a small number of people to foul the pool for everyone else who just wants a pleasant place to swin.

 

Believe it or not, it's in the best interest of Groundspeak to keep most of its players happy, so that they'll keep spending money. This doesn't have to be about the business "versus" the players.

 

I'm actually not expecting to see these "Quality and Health Guidelines" published. I think there are a very small number of troublemakers that Groundspeak is trying to address directly. There's an old saying that "bad cases make bad law"; trying to address the problems of these very small number of troublemakers with a published policy might be counter-productive. Far better to say "hey, you, Team Hugs, quit @#$!ing in the pool or we're giving you a timeout", as appears to have happened here.

 

Let's not overreact to one person being butt-hurt and publishing their hurt across the Internet as a sign of the Apocalypse.

 

In my experience there are players who make the game unpleasant due to their disposition AND/OR as "sub-standard" caches.

 

I had a very negative experience with an Earthcache CO once and have no interest in going back to gather further data to appease the CO. The EarthCache itself was in a lovely area and the listing appeared to be highly satisfactory.

 

There have been instances of COs who get into it with would-be finders because they don't like the log or logging style of the finder. These are effectively difficult people to get along with and the container could be the finest of hides (ammo can deep in the woods, no more than 20 feet from the trail ;) )

 

What gave me pause was reading Keystone's post, these words specifically: I can confirm that Geocaching HQ is focusing on geocache quality and health in 2017 Those are the sort of words that perk the ears or eyes up. Sounds like some guidelines (read: rules) have been hammered out lately.

Link to comment

The thing that worries me about this sudden new interest in Quality is who is the judge?

I believe the correct answer is that the CO's peers should judge cache quality. So I'm hoping this new push for quality will include a healthy amount of education about the proper use of NMs and NAs to inform both people that should be posting them and COs that should be reacting to them. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Link to comment

If this is real then I don't understand why there wouldn't have been at least a blog post about the "new focus on geocache quality and health for 2017."

I can confirm that Geocaching HQ is focusing on geocache quality and health in 2017. There may be more said about this by HQ in the future. I would not draw too many conclusions from this (hopefully) rare example of private user discipline in the form of a placement ban.

 

In the FB group I referenced above, the cacher who had received this has only 4 active caches, none of which require maintenance, and has only 10 old archived caches, so he seems a strange choice to be a recipient of this. Also it was his local reviewer who first said this was fake, so he clearly knew nothing about this initiative.

 

It seems like another bodged implmentation, maybe GS should be focusing on their own quality in 2017 <_<

 

Assuming the original "private discipline" email is valid (which seems to be the case), it appears that the UK example was sent as a hoax. In other words:

 

1. Groundspeak did send such a private communication to a cacher (in the USA).

2. That got posted on several Facebook groups.

3. Someone took one of those Facebook posts and turned it into a fake email (showing from Groundspeak) to a UK cacher

 

I can't be sure about point 3 but that is how it looks, and seems the most likely.

Link to comment

 

3. Someone took one of those Facebook posts and turned it into a fake email (showing from Groundspeak) to a UK cacher

 

I can't be sure about point 3 but that is how it looks, and seems the most likely.

 

Yes, it looks that way now.

 

I still think this is another bad implementation by GS.

 

They should have

 

  1. Made all reviewers aware that this was on the horizon well in advance, so they would be prepared for the inevitable questions.
  2. Issued a notice in the newsletter/blog/forums before implementing it.
  3. Stated what they were doing.
  4. Why they were doing it.
  5. And how they were going about it.

 

Which would have avoided a lot of the speculation and concern.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 11
×
×
  • Create New...