Groundspeaks not communicating

[+Rustynails]

Groundspeak deleted a found log on one of my hides. I was not aware this happened and the finder thought I complained to HQ and deleted his log. I emailed HQ and asked what happen and why I wasn't notified there were issues with the log. They gave me a short explanation on why but did not say why they didn't notify me.

 

The finder did find the cache so that's not an issue. Please keep the topic focused on the following two questions.

 

As the CO should I not be made aware of any problems associated with my cache?

Why won't Groundspeak notify me or any cache owner when receiving a complaint or before deleting a log?

Edited July 11, 2017 by rustynails.

[+dprovan]

As the CO should I not be made aware of any problems associated with my cache?

I can imagine a case that was so clear that GS just took care of it without bothering the CO. For example, if the log was filled with invective, GS might delete it assuming it was obvious that they would.

 

Why won't Groundspeak notify me or any cache owner when receiving a complaint or before deleting a log?

I assume they didn't notify you because they didn't think it was worth bothering you about.

 

(I'm focusing on the questions with laser-like precision because that's what you asked us to do, so I'm ignoring the fact that my explanation is inconsistent with you coming here puzzled and unable to get a clear explanation from GS.)

[+niraD]

One other example I've seen:

 

In a few cases where spammers auto-logged many, many caches, when the spammers' accounts were deleted, so were the many spam logs. Cache owners were not notified.

[+Isonzo Karst]

As the CO should I not be made aware of any problems associated with my cache?

 

Case in point seems to a be a problem associated with a user's log, not your cache.

 

 

With the info you've provided, there does not seem to be any issue with your cache.

Apparently there was an issue with some other person's log. Groundspeak dealt with it, per their terms of use I expect.

[+Rustynails]

As the CO should I not be made aware of any problems associated with my cache?

 

Case in point seems to a be a problem associated with a user's log, not your cache.

 

 

With the info you've provided, there does not seem to be any issue with your cache.

Apparently there was an issue with some other person's log. Groundspeak dealt with it, per their terms of use I expect.

 

You are correct. They still should have notified me they deleted a found log. I would then have been prepared to deal with a upset finder.

[+Touchstone]

My guess would be some sort of Terms of Use violation, and in cases such as that, Groundspeak is usually pretty quiet, in order to maintain the privacy of the other user. In some cases, it might be useful for Groundspeak to communicate the cache owner expectation in terms of maintaining the Listing page, such as deleting log entries in the not so family friendly realm of issues. Other times, it might not be so obvious to the casual observer, such as stalking behavior. In which case, Groundspeak is correct to keep the matter private in order to respect the privacy of the victim.

 

I could wildly speculate further, but without additional information it's a little hard to guess.

[+Rustynails]

My guess would be some sort of Terms of Use violation, and in cases such as that, Groundspeak is usually pretty quiet, in order to maintain the privacy of the other user. In some cases, it might be useful for Groundspeak to communicate the cache owner expectation in terms of maintaining the Listing page, such as deleting log entries in the not so family friendly realm of issues. Other times, it might not be so obvious to the casual observer, such as stalking behavior. In which case, Groundspeak is correct to keep the matter private in order to respect the privacy of the victim.

 

I could wildly speculate further, but without additional information it's a little hard to guess.

 

I did not include the logs content because I didn't want this to turn into a debate.

 

That's why I asked to focus on my two questions.

[+ChileHead]

If this cacher found hundreds of caches and posted with their logs vulgarities and advertisements, then I could see HQ just deleting them entirely, and there would be no reason to bother dozens or hundreds of cache owners, or spend the time doing so. But since you didn't list the log content, we can only speculate.

[+searchjaunt]

Did you try sending an appeal: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=476? That will be more effecient than posting in this forum.

[+Team Microdot]

I didn't want this to turn into a debate.

 

Then why ask us?

[+Rustynails]

I didn't want this to turn into a debate.

 

Then why ask us?

 

If your going to quote me then don't edit what I said. Here's what I said.

 

"I did not include the logs content because I didn't want this to turn into a debate."

[+JL_HSTRE]

Was it obvious what the problem with the log was (ex: vulgarity)? If so, you got notification of the log text in your Inbox and failed to act on the problem so Groundspeak did.

 

I would say that when Groundspeak deletes a log a notification should go to the CO so they're aware of what's going on, even if it's just a case of a mass armchair logging getting wiped out.

[+Team Microdot]

I didn't want this to turn into a debate.

 

Then why ask us?

 

If your going to quote me then don't edit what I said. Here's what I said.

 

"I did not include the logs content because I didn't want this to turn into a debate."

 

That doesn't change the fact that you don't want this to turn into a debate so the question stands.

[+hzoi]

In theory, I agree; as the CO, I would want to be involved in the decision to delete a find.

 

In practice, it sounds like the log content was objectionable enough that Groundspeak took action sua sponte. It's difficult to discuss the merits of that without knowing generally what we're talking about, or what you don't want us to talk about.

 

It'd be nice if you at least mentioned what the apparent issue with the log was, though of course that runs the risk that we don't all just validate your opinion in the absence of facts.

[+Manville Possum]

 

It'd be nice if you at least mentioned what the apparent issue with the log was, though of course that runs the risk that we don't all just validate your opinion in the absence of facts.

 

 

Concealing facts for the matter to make Groundspeak appear to be in the wrong, which if actual facts were presented would prove it was the nature of the deleted log that maybe the CO should have already addressed.

[+dprovan]

You are correct. They still should have notified me they deleted a found log. I would then have been prepared to deal with a upset finder.

Well, I claim GS should have clearly explained it to the finder so he wouldn't be upset and wouldn't have blamed you. Then you wouldn't have gotten involved. People are hypothesizing several examples where the deletion had nothing to do with your cache, so there'd be no reason to inform you.

 

Until recently, I would have assumed GS would clearly explain the deletion to the offending party to insure they understood what they'd done wrong and wouldn't do it again, but I've just recently been behind the closed doors, and I found it remarkable how clumsy they are when dealing with people they've decided have violated the rules. I would have thought they'd have this kind of thing down after doing it for nearly two decades.

[+Rustynails]

 

It'd be nice if you at least mentioned what the apparent issue with the log was, though of course that runs the risk that we don't all just validate your opinion in the absence of facts.

 

 

Concealing facts for the matter to make Groundspeak appear to be in the wrong, which if actual facts were presented would prove it was the nature of the deleted log that maybe the CO should have already addressed.

 

I didn't address or delete the log when I first saw it because, it was just another found log. Nothing about it was obscene, vulgar or offensive. I never thought anymore about it until the finder posted a new found it log and mentioned his prior log had been deleted.

[+Manville Possum]

 

It'd be nice if you at least mentioned what the apparent issue with the log was, though of course that runs the risk that we don't all just validate your opinion in the absence of facts.

 

 

Concealing facts for the matter to make Groundspeak appear to be in the wrong, which if actual facts were presented would prove it was the nature of the deleted log that maybe the CO should have already addressed.

 

I didn't address or delete the log when I first saw it because, it was just another found log. Nothing about it was obscene, vulgar or offensive. I never thought anymore about it until the finder posted a new found it log and mentioned his prior log had been deleted.

 

And his prior log was deleted by HQ for what reason?

[+on4bam]

And his prior log was deleted by HQ for what reason?

 

Read this.

 

Looks like the thread is started to find out why the log was deleted and GS remains silent about it.

The TS has seen the log and saw nothing wrong with it so why the deletion?

[+Rustynails]

 

It'd be nice if you at least mentioned what the apparent issue with the log was, though of course that runs the risk that we don't all just validate your opinion in the absence of facts.

 

 

Concealing facts for the matter to make Groundspeak appear to be in the wrong, which if actual facts were presented would prove it was the nature of the deleted log that maybe the CO should have already addressed.

 

I didn't address or delete the log when I first saw it because, it was just another found log. Nothing about it was obscene, vulgar or offensive. I never thought anymore about it until the finder posted a new found it log and mentioned his prior log had been deleted.

 

And his prior log was deleted by HQ for what reason?

 

I don't know exactly why. I was given a general answer that it violated something in the terms. I can only speculate it was a matter of interpretation. Maybe a generational thing where a young lackey interpreted something differently than an older person would. I read the log to my caching buddy and he agreed there's nothing wrong with it. Right or wrong it's groundspeaks right to delete a log.

 

But that's not why I started this topic. As the CO I would like to be kept in the loop of anything associated with the cache including logs.

[+WarNinjas]

I can see your point for sure and I would also like to know. Sounds like this is different and they actually found the cache. But as a CO in San Francisco I would say about 3 times a year or so we get some fool who just starts logging finds on all the caches around to the point of where you know there is no way it was possible for them to do. We pick up on it because it will be 5* puzzles never certified and a bunch of kayak to only caches, Caches that are missing, then throw in some finds in new york and other country's on the same day. Often 100's of finds. We delete them and report them. Now I can imagine if GS sent all the CO notes about this they would get questions from 100's of CO about nothing all the time.

If the cacher contacted me about a log GS deleted I would just tell them they would have to ask GS what is up with it. If they found it then I would welcome them to log the find again.

[+redsox_mark]

I think the CO should be informed.

 

As a CO, we all agree to guidelines which include: Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance.

As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

 

If Groundspeak is stepping in and deleting logs on my cache, then perhaps I've missed something. If it is down to some "technicality" (e.g. maybe they mentioned using an unauthorized app) then I can understand my missing it. But I'd like to be alerted.

[+Manville Possum]

I was given a general answer that it violated something in the terms. I can only speculate it was a matter of interpretation. Maybe a generational thing where a young lackey interpreted something differently than an older person would. I read the log to my caching buddy and he agreed there's nothing wrong with it. Right or wrong it's groundspeaks right to delete a log.

 

But that's not why I started this topic. As the CO I would like to be kept in the loop of anything associated with the cache including logs.

 

It sounds like something that I would not have found offensive, but another customer did and complained so HQ responded to their request.

 

However, I do agree that the CO should be alerted. Was your listing PMO?

[+thebruce0]

It would be interesting if GS added notifications of logs deleted from your own cache listing. Many might look at it as 'spam', but they could provide an option to turn off that level of notification. On that note, having a panel for which notifications you'd like to receive as an owner could be very welcome...

[+KBLAST]

This is not answering the question directly but it might be a workaround. If you are a paying member of project-gc, there is an option to receive notifications for edited logs. I think project-gc is worth the money for many reasons, this is just another option. I'm not positive if project-gc would detect a log had been deleted by Groundspeak, so I don't know if this would be a viable solution, but I wanted to at least let you all know.

 

I understand this doesn't answer your question. As to that question, I agree, I'd personally like to know if Groundspeak deletes a log on one of my caches, particularly if it's a subjective deletion. If it's subjective, then someone decided it was necessary, so it'd be nice to get a communication from them explaining the situation. On the other hand, I'm not the lackey tasked with monitoring this kind of thing - who knows how many cases there are like this.

[+dprovan]

It would be interesting if GS added notifications of logs deleted from your own cache listing. Many might look at it as 'spam', but they could provide an option to turn off that level of notification. On that note, having a panel for which notifications you'd like to receive as an owner could be very welcome...

While it might be nice to hear about it, the OP isn't asking to hear about it: he wants it explained to him. If GS could have explained it to anyone, they should have explained it to the logger, since they're the other party. If GS had done that, the CO never would have heard of the incident because the logger would have no reason to blame the CO. I'm not seeing a justification for the CO's curiosity being satisfied by requiring that GS bring them into the conversation if it's none of their business.

 

The way I see it, the only problem here is that GS handled the issue so clumsily that it became the CO's business.

[+thebruce0]

It would be interesting if GS added notifications of logs deleted from your own cache listing. Many might look at it as 'spam', but they could provide an option to turn off that level of notification. On that note, having a panel for which notifications you'd like to receive as an owner could be very welcome...

While it might be nice to hear about it, the OP isn't asking to hear about it: he wants it explained to him. If GS could have explained it to anyone, they should have explained it to the logger, since they're the other party. If GS had done that, the CO never would have heard of the incident because the logger would have no reason to blame the CO. I'm not seeing a justification for the CO's curiosity being satisfied by requiring that GS bring them into the conversation if it's none of their business.

 

The way I see it, the only problem here is that GS handled the issue so clumsily that it became the CO's business.

Yes, I realize what the OP requested. I just said it'd be interesting. Perhaps I should have prepended with "Side thought:"

 

I agree that GS shouldn't be required to explain their reasonings for taking action, but agree that in cases where action taken isn't obviously reasoned, it would be nice of them to either explain it better to the person affected, or a tip to the CO.

 

In this case, there was apparently insufficient explanation, causing the log owner confusion about who took the action. In short, GS's deletion caused confusion. I don't think any rules or whatever should change just because of this - mistakes happen - but I agree it seems odd that no on knew why it happened. Could easily have been a lack of foresight on the GS lackey that deleted the log. Who knows.

[Nicc from KS]

My experience with Groundspeak has shown their lackeys and administrators to be unprofessional and immature. They apply a broad and inconsistent interpretation of the terms of service and multiple attempts for an explanation or discussion go ignored because they cannot justify their actions. If you are a premium member or a cache owner, you are a stakeholder in geocaching.com. Groundspeak owes us some customer service.

I will not be surprised if this post is deleted. Criticism of Groundspeak staff, reviewers, and moderators get deletion and retaliation.

~Nicc

[+hzoi]

52 minutes ago, Nicc from KS said:

My experience with Groundspeak has shown their lackeys and administrators to be unprofessional and immature. They apply a broad and inconsistent interpretation of the terms of service and multiple attempts for an explanation or discussion go ignored because they cannot justify their actions. If you are a premium member or a cache owner, you are a stakeholder in geocaching.com. Groundspeak owes us some customer service.

I will not be surprised if this post is deleted. Criticism of Groundspeak staff, reviewers, and moderators get deletion and retaliation.

~Nicc

Interesting.  My experience with Groundspeak has been pretty much the opposite. 

 

On the other hand, my experience with cachers who share your negative attitude towards Groundspeak lackeys and/or reviewers is that there always seem to be more to the story than such aggrieved cachers let on.

[Keystone]

5 hours ago, Nicc from KS said:

My experience with Groundspeak has shown their lackeys and administrators to be unprofessional and immature. They apply a broad and inconsistent interpretation of the terms of service and multiple attempts for an explanation or discussion go ignored because they cannot justify their actions. If you are a premium member or a cache owner, you are a stakeholder in geocaching.com. Groundspeak owes us some customer service.

I will not be surprised if this post is deleted. Criticism of Groundspeak staff, reviewers, and moderators get deletion and retaliation.

~Nicc

I see Geocaching HQ customer service in action more than most people, because I'm a Reviewer.  (And yeah, that makes me biased, I get that.)

Recently I worked with HQ on two appeals of my reviewer decisions, about one week apart.  I noticed that the ticket numbers for the two issues were about 7000 numbers apart.  Whoa! 7000 inquiries in one week - how do they keep up with that?  One smart thing is to have one team answering routine emails, like account and payment issues, "how do I?" questions, etc., and a separate team for more complex problems, like cache appeals and TOU violations.  This model has worked well.  I remember when Jeremy Irish was the only customer service employee, and he sometimes got backed up with "hundreds of emails" over the course of a few weeks.

Another key to success is to end conversations once the rule / guideline / principle is explained once, and clarified no more than once or twice.  The vast majority of issues have been handled before by HQ, and they do their best to keep records of those decisions and to give clear, concise and consistent answers - often using templates that have been polished from answering similar questions previously.  It may be the first time that the inquiring geocacher has encountered the issue, and they may wish to keep debating, but at some point (as in this thread's example), the ruling is final and it's time to move on to those other 7000 emails.  What the inquiring geocacher may view as "attempts for an explanation or discussion going ignored" is viewed by HQ as "asked and answered."  What HQ views as a straightforward "no way" answer based on years of similar answers may be viewed by the inquiring geocacher as rude answers that cannot be justified.  What the inquiring geocacher views as "inconsistency" between two different answers is often because the facts are different -- no two locations are the same, listing guidelines change over time, and established interpretation of certain guidelines varies from one part of the world to another.

I have seen routine questions get answered by HQ with a one paragraph "form letter" reply.  I have seen complex questions involving listing guideline interpretations take up many hours of staff time, including meetings of the entire Appeals team, and multiple back and forth communications with the other parties involved.  The responses appear to be well-tailored to the circumstances presented.

I have been on the receiving end of rulings from HQ that went against me.  Over time, I've learned that it's easier to move on, and that maybe I'm a little too emotionally invested in the debate I was having over the wording on a cache page.  See the first line in my forum signature.

The overwhelming majority of cache publications, log entries, and geocacher interactions are accomplished with absolutely zero fanfare or controversy.  For the small percentage of my interactions that do go sideways, I've found it useful to note that it's very unusual, and then look inwards and say "maybe it's just me" and to look at the other geocacher and say "maybe it's just them." 

[+thebruce0]

*pauses*
*stands*
*slow clap*
*applause*

[Nicc from KS]

Yes, I considered that it might just be me. That's why I looked into it further, outside the realm controlled by Groundspeak. After encountering a reviewer who was abusing his authority, I searched Facebook for anything related to that reviewer. I found dozens of complaints about this reviewer over the last few years and complaints that Groundspeak had ignored other cachers' concerns. Groundspeak doesn't want to discuss the abusive reviewer and I'm sure any attempt on the forum would be deleted as it might hurt someone's feelings.

Groundspeak's tendency to ignore complaints and inquiries, or dismiss them with the generic 'Our reviewers/moderators are hardworking, dedicated blah, blah, blah'..... is an arrogant and unprofessional way to run a business which touts itself as a community. The careers video seems to show a drinking party type atmosphere. Geocaching is a game, but the administration of that should be taken more seriously. The OP wants an explanation as to why a log was deleted. The response from Groundspeak and this forum is, "Go away, we're busy." The dismissive and condescending attitude of some reviewers, moderators and Groundspeak staff is sending geocaching into decline.

This translates into fewer quality caches and more micro throwdowns.

~Nicc

[+GeoTrekker26]

1 hour ago, Nicc from KS said:

The careers video seems to show a drinking party type atmosphere. Geocaching is a game, but the administration of that should be taken more seriously.

~Nicc

You are either kidding or are looking for things to complain about.  I watched the video and saw a whimsical, short recruiting film. A drinking party atmosphere? Hardly. But I did see that they showed very young children a few times.  By your distorted view, they must be recruiting minors, perhaps so they can pay them less?

As alluded to in another post, we often get complaints about admin or review misdemeanors with proffered "facts."  The complaint almost always disappears when the actual sequence of events is presented by a reviewer or moderator.

I find the entire thread to be ironic given that GS is communicating with us unlike any time in the last 3 or 4 years.  The are posting to the forums, responding to concerns and even altering changes when they are made aware of unintended consequences.  Thank you admin team, moderators and reviewers!

[Keystone]

3 hours ago, Nicc from KS said:

Groundspeak's tendency to ignore complaints and inquiries, or dismiss them with the generic 'Our reviewers/moderators are hardworking, dedicated blah, blah, blah'..... is an arrogant and unprofessional way to run a business which touts itself as a community.

I can assure you, if the reviewer were abusing their authority, they'd be swiftly corrected by HQ.  Heck, I get corrected from time to time in situations that don't even rise to the level of abuse.  The most recent example was along the lines of "you're doing a good job of enforcing guideline X, but you don't need to be SO literal.  There is room for discretion and latitude."  That was valuable feedback.

If HQ has the time for that sort of coaching to one of their more experienced reviewers, imagine how quickly they would jump on a clear case of abuse, like "I'm archiving all of Billy's caches because I don't like Billy."  In my experience, true transgressions are dealt with promptly and professionally.

So, the fact that you instead received the canned "our reviewers/moderators are hardworking..." message means that HQ does not view the scenario as "abusive."  It's good to remember that, just because you disagree with an action and you didn't get your way, that doesn't make the other person "abusive."  They're just "correct."

Edited July 26, 2017 by Keystone

[+SeattleWayne]

On 7/25/2017 at 2:46 PM, Nicc from KS said:

My experience with Groundspeak has shown their lackeys and administrators to be unprofessional and immature. They apply a broad and inconsistent interpretation of the terms of service and multiple attempts for an explanation or discussion go ignored because they cannot justify their actions. If you are a premium member or a cache owner, you are a stakeholder in geocaching.com. Groundspeak owes us some customer service.

I will not be surprised if this post is deleted. Criticism of Groundspeak staff, reviewers, and moderators get deletion and retaliation.

~Nicc

I've never experienced anything negative from Groundspeak. 

[+SeattleWayne]

6 hours ago, Nicc from KS said:

The OP wants an explanation as to why a log was deleted. The response from Groundspeak and this forum is, "Go away, we're busy." The dismissive and condescending attitude of some reviewers, moderators and Groundspeak staff is sending geocaching into decline.

 

The OP emailed HQ and asked what was wrong with the log, and why he wasn't notified. HQ emailed back and told OP what was wrong with the log but didn't say anything about why OP wasn't notified. Curious as to why OP doesn't email HQ back, and ask again for an explanation as to why he wasn't notified? Instead, lets chalk it up as Groundspeak being unprofessional, immature and "too busy" to answer??? 

 

Does it really matter why HQ didn't explain why CO wasn't notified? 

[+Touchstone]

8 hours ago, Nicc from KS said:

The OP wants an explanation as to why a log was deleted. The response from Groundspeak and this forum is, "Go away, we're busy." The dismissive and condescending attitude of some reviewers, moderators and Groundspeak staff is sending geocaching into decline.

I think you meant to say, "Go away. Sharing that information with you might violate our Privacy Policy".  Link for reference:

https://www.geocaching.com/account/documents/privacypolicy

Coming from an industry where sharing privileged information might put you in legal jeapordy, I can totally understand Groundspeak's reluctance to divulge too much.

[+JL_HSTRE]

8 hours ago, GeoTrekker26 said:

As alluded to in another post, we often get complaints about admin or review misdemeanors with proffered "facts."  The complaint almost always disappears when the actual sequence of events is presented by a reviewer or moderator.

After several years on the forums the number of times criticism of Groundspeak has been demonstrated to be half-truths from the "victim" really creates alot of noise that drowns out whatever real issues there actually are. There is alot of wolf-crying from geocachers upset that they were told "no."

[+JL_HSTRE]

10 hours ago, Nicc from KS said:

After encountering a reviewer who was abusing his authority, I searched Facebook for anything related to that reviewer. I found dozens of complaints about this reviewer over the last few years and complaints that Groundspeak had ignored other cachers' concerns.

The next Reviewer I hear about that doesn't have people unhappy with them will be the first. Some Reviewers are no doubt better than others, but so are some cachers.

[Nicc from KS]

Just as I predicted in my original post, criticism of Groundspeak and reviewers gets retaliation. Again, I have found dozens of complaints about a specific reviewer's abusive behavior on facebook's caching group's pages. I included multiple examples of these complaints in my attempt to resolve this issue. Many of those who complain about these problems on FB will not come onto this forum because they know they will be shouted down by the Groundspeak sycophants just as I have been.

At least one reviewer and one or more anonymous lackeys have violated their own terms of service against me with lies and retaliation. If Groundspeak had gotten the reviewer under control back in February of this year before he even creeped into my caching territory, I would not have any complaints about this. I have tried to share my experience with Groundspeak so the OP would see that his frustrating dealings with Groundspeak are not that uncommon despite what the 'in crowd' on this forum hallucinates.

If anyone would care to do a little research, check some of the log posts of my archived caches. Perform a facebook search of the reviewer that is mentioned. And then tell me my complaints about this reviewer and Groundspeak are nothing but half truths.

[+thebruce0]

Hmm...

Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "sycophant for Groundspeak" will not get you any sympathy. Especially for those of us who have had disagreements with reviewers and Groundspeak. Simply put, what you're arguing is essentially a conspiracy theory. Those of us here who "defend" Groundspeak (not that they need defending) realize things that you seem to want to ignore, about business, about the nature of community interaction, about rules and guidelines, both for community and those in authority (lackeys, reviewers, business as a whole, etc).

When you call everyone who doesn't seem to abhore Groundspeak proper as you do a "sycophant", you do yourself no favours in making your case. Many of us have been where you are. And have moved on because we've realized either A] it's not worth it, or B] we were wrong (issues were resolved and GS was not as we charged, or the issue was us and GS was correct).  I'd recommend you consider the same.

Edited July 27, 2017 by thebruce0

[+SeattleWayne]

There's always two sides to the story. 

 

I've published seven caches (soon to be eight) and I haven't had any issues with Groundspeak, reviewers, lackeys or moderators. 

To go out of my way to look up a reviewer on Facebook seems to be a little creepy, to be honest. But hey, to each their own. 

[+Team Christiansen]

1 hour ago, Nicc from KS said:

 . . . criticism of Groundspeak and reviewers gets retaliation.  . . .  

Many of those who complain about these problems . . . will be shouted down by the Groundspeak sycophants just as I have been.

. . . despite what the 'in crowd' on this forum hallucinates.

If anyone would care to do a little research, check some of the log posts of my archived caches. Perform a facebook search of the reviewer that is mentioned. And then tell me my complaints about this reviewer and Groundspeak are nothing but half truths.

Wow!!

 I don't see anyone "shouting" you down. By the tone of these posts, if anyone is shouting it is you. It is unfair to label those who disagree who disagree with you as "sycophants" or their opinions as "hallucinations."

I did look at some of your archive logs and skimmed over a few Face Book comments and all I saw, consistent with your forum posts in this thread, was disparaging vitriol against the reviewer because you and some others disagreed with the reviewer's interpretation of or method of enforcing rules and guidelines.

Where one wants to present an argument and convince others of their position, one loses any credibility they ever had, by throwing out such inflammatory adjectives, adverbs, and over--generalizations, even if their position is the correct one.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Team Christiansen
grammer

[+Team Christiansen]

32 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

Wow!!

 I don't see anyone "shouting" you down. By the tone of these posts, if anyone is shouting it is you. It is unfair to label those who disagree who disagree with you as "sycophants" or their opinions as "hallucinations."

I did look at some of your archive logs and skimmed over a few Face Book comments and all I saw, consistent with your forum posts in this thread, was disparaging vitriol against the reviewer because you and some others disagreed with the reviewer's interpretation of or method of enforcing rules and guidelines.

Where one wants to present an argument and convince others of their position, one loses any credibility they ever had, by throwing out such inflammatory adjectives, adverbs, and over--generalizations, even if their position is the correct one.

Can you imagine standing before an appellate judge and the best argument you can get out is that you should win just because the opposing party is a "stinky poo-poo head."

Edited July 27, 2017 by Team Christiansen
grammer

[+hzoi]

2 hours ago, Nicc from KS said:

Just as I predicted in my original post, criticism of Groundspeak and reviewers gets retaliation. Again, I have found dozens of complaints about a specific reviewer's abusive behavior on facebook's caching group's pages. I included multiple examples of these complaints in my attempt to resolve this issue. Many of those who complain about these problems on FB will not come onto this forum because they know they will be shouted down by the Groundspeak sycophants just as I have been.

At least one reviewer and one or more anonymous lackeys have violated their own terms of service against me with lies and retaliation. If Groundspeak had gotten the reviewer under control back in February of this year before he even creeped into my caching territory, I would not have any complaints about this. I have tried to share my experience with Groundspeak so the OP would see that his frustrating dealings with Groundspeak are not that uncommon despite what the 'in crowd' on this forum hallucinates.

If anyone would care to do a little research, check some of the log posts of my archived caches. Perform a facebook search of the reviewer that is mentioned. And then tell me my complaints about this reviewer and Groundspeak are nothing but half truths.

OK, I'll bite.  I read your archive log rant.*  Why don't you just go ahead and call out geocrater by name rather than this passive aggressive screed?  At least that way we'll get the other side of the story.  Until then, your insistence that the forum takes your side without presenting any facts whatsoever seems rather narcissistic. 

 

So far the only thing I see is that geocrater appears to be...behaving like a reviewer.  I see caches that presented apparent issues that got disabled, then the cache owners didn't bother to check or respond to the temp disable, and then the cache got archived at or after the standard 30 days.  OK, and today is Thursday.  Where's the "so what?"  What's the war crime we're investigating here?  To borrow a phrase from my day job, those look like good kills to me.  But perhaps I'm missing something.

 

All this is of course off topic to the thread, which is about Groundspeak not communicating with a CO by before deleting someone's found it log.  So perhaps you should consider  starting your own geocrater -- sorry, I mean, vaguely referenced, unnamed reviewer -- grievance thread.  Up to you, really.

 

*(By the way, if you're attempting to sidestep forum rules by making what seems to be pretty obvious references to your own encrypted logs, I don't think that's going to give you a viable defense if someone decides this is worth a vacation or bannination.)

[+hzoi]

23 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

Can you imagine standing before an appellate judge and the best argument you can get out is that you should win just because the opposing party is a "stinky poo-poo head."

I don't think that's how they taught it at AFJAGS.  At least not when I was there.

[+Team Christiansen]

7 minutes ago, hzoi said:

I don't think that's how they taught it at AFJAGS.  At least not when I was there.

Exactly, although I haven't had the pleasure (just NJS and TJAGSA).

Sorry about getting off topic.

[+SeattleWayne]

3 hours ago, Nicc from KS said:

 

If anyone would care to do a little research, check some of the log posts of my archived caches. Perform a facebook search of the reviewer that is mentioned. And then tell me my complaints about this reviewer and Groundspeak are nothing but half truths.

I did a little research after your archived log rant was posted on here- it appears you've archived all of your caches with the same rant whether your caches needed to be archived or not. 

 

And some logs say "Not enough quality cachers in this area to keep this going" ??? 

 

And then in one log you disrespect city workers by calling them drug addicts??? Maybe...you bring some of this on yourself? Just saying. 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by SeattleWayne

[Nicc from KS]

What I see are people who have been 'given', emphasis on given, authority. Who then proceed to abuse the authority because they believe their title makes that okay. And when their abuse is questioned or called out, their attitude is that they can interpret the rules however they wish, and if someone doesn't like it, they must accept that as a difference of opinion and move on without discussion. Because further discussion would shed light on the abuse. This is the premise I offered to the OP and have continued to offer.

The attitude many of you(who have side tracked this thread) seem to have is that you don't believe reviewers, moderators, and lackeys should not follow the same set of rules imposed on everyone else. This upsets you a great deal. The lack of maturity has shone through in this regard.

The lack of response the OP received on his issue is standard practice which should be corrected. The response of the sycophants to quash complaints is a serious problem on this forum. Not just with this thread and other topics but with quite a few threads I've read over the years. I went to Facebook when I first had a problem with geocrater, because I know that complaints are not taken seriously on this forum because of the reasons I've mentioned. It's not creepy, it was an investigation. I wanted to know if it was just me who had a problem or if others saw the same things I did. Guess what? It's not just me. There are dozens of people who have complaints, not just about a specific reviewer but about groundspeaks refusal to address the issue.

But hey! As long as you folks stay in your little microcosm here, and continue to talk down to all the people who make you feel sad, your power trip will never end.

[+cerberus1]

12 hours ago, Nicc from KS said:

If anyone would care to do a little research, check some of the log posts of my archived caches. Perform a facebook search of the reviewer that is mentioned. And then tell me my complaints about this reviewer and Groundspeak are nothing but half truths.

I looked through a lot.  Wow. 

I saw your complaints, which didn't help much in your offer to figure what the issue might be.  

Most had a rant post  (after archival) that I'm kinda surprised you haven't been given a time-out or lockout for.

 - The ones encrypted  just didn't make much sense to me, when it's pretty-much the same spiel as others  without.

Really curious why you'd think, "There aren't enough quality geocachers in the Wichita area to keep these going" on the others.