Fraudulent "Performed Maintenance" logs

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, dprovan said:

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

NA logs by persons who have not recently visited the cache are disallowed - even when the cache logs clearly demonstrate that the cache is long past its best.

When did this happen? In my experience, most NAs are posted by people that have not recently visited the cache because the reasons for posting an NA are pretty much the same as the reasons no one seeing that evidence will go look for the cache.

Well, I'm talking about back in the days when people posted NAs. Nowadays our local reviewer normally steps in long before anyone else feels justified to post an NA.

I've had the experience in the past few days.

[+Team Microdot]

15 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

33 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Which is why I recently decided to avoid being part of the process any longer by not logging NM's and NA's because doing so seems to lead to conflict not only with the most vocal protestors in the community but now also the local reviewer!

I hear you, and I'm on the same list in my area. First the locals, then the reviewer and all over posting  NM and NA. 

And as this seems to be the way things are going I also won't be introducing any newcomers as it's no longer something I feel any pride in.

[+L0ne.R]

16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

And as this seems to be the way things are going I also won't be introducing any newcomers as it's no longer something I feel any pride in.

That's something I've done in the past year. When asked about geocaching I've told people that I don't recommend it because it's become a geolitter game. 

Yet oddly I suppose, I hold up hope that things might change, even though I've seen a steady decline for the last 8 years. Maybe it's the uptick in my area by reviewers to clean up some of the abandoned listings.

But I have been gobsmacked by the amount of new geolitter that replaces the reviewer-archived geolitter. I wasn't counting on that. It has made me also consider giving up on NMs and NAs.

The only way I can see to improve things is to say no to Power Trails, return the  'don't hide a cache every .1 miles' rule. But that would have to come from the reviewers. If they want power trails then there may be nothing that can be done about the continued decline. As long as power trails exist, so does the set-em-and-forget-em poor-quality smiley-above-all find-loopholes-rather-then-maintain power trail culture. 

[+hal-an-tow]

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

NA logs by persons who have not recently visited the cache are disallowed - even when the cache logs clearly demonstrate that the cache is long past its best.

Nope.

I flagged these up when I saw the listings whilst planning  trips, and made no claim to have visited any of them.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2CFYW_henry-the-first?guid=7759d087-6059-4a50-b7ba-12c887db3645

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4V52X_is-anybody-there-2?guid=56023a93-febc-424f-b92c-93e7dc71c697

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5574W_evie-jake001?guid=a0507e96-bff4-42a9-8069-9997cc43c064

[+Team Microdot]

17 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

NA logs by persons who have not recently visited the cache are disallowed - even when the cache logs clearly demonstrate that the cache is long past its best.

Nope.

I flagged these up when I saw the listings whilst planning  trips, and made no claim to have visited any of them.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2CFYW_henry-the-first?guid=7759d087-6059-4a50-b7ba-12c887db3645

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4V52X_is-anybody-there-2?guid=56023a93-febc-424f-b92c-93e7dc71c697

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5574W_evie-jake001?guid=a0507e96-bff4-42a9-8069-9997cc43c064

Which makes me wonder then why our local reviewer seems to see things differently.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Which makes me wonder then why our local reviewer seems to see things differently.

I agree. Perhaps Groundspeak is unaware that this reviewer that hasn't kept up with the changes. I think the CHS tool is one factor pointing to a change of policy.

 

[+The A-Team]

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Which makes me wonder then why our local reviewer seems to see things differently.

All reviewers do things a bit differently. Maybe there was a rash of unjustified NA logs in your area and they need to be more strict now. Justified NA logs are acceptable around here if you haven't visited the cache recently, but of course YMMV.

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I've had the experience in the past few days.

I'm sorry, I know it's probably my mistake, but I'm missing something. I looked back in the thread but can't find what you're talking about. What happened in the past few days? A reviewer deleted an NA because you hadn't visited GZ? That would be a most annoying development.

[+Team Microdot]

1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

All reviewers do things a bit differently. Maybe there was a rash of unjustified NA logs in your area and they need to be more strict now. Justified NA logs are acceptable around here if you haven't visited the cache recently, but of course YMMV.

I haven't seen any unjustified NA logs. Not a single one.

[+cerberus1]

52 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

All reviewers do things a bit differently. Maybe there was a rash of unjustified NA logs in your area and they need to be more strict now.

That might be my bet too.  There's a couple threads of people who were infamous in their areas (one I believe in your area) for remote-logging NMs and NAs, and IIRC a thread of one local favorite cache regularly had NM and NA logs removed by the local Reviewer (the CO wasn't available - don't remember why...) because of people like that. 

We had a NM once because the cache didn't have a pen.   A Reviewer can see deleted logs and "stuff" we can't.   They have a lot more info available to base an opinion on as well. If someone feels hurt that a Reviewer isn't responding to their actions, there's always the "Contact Us" at the bottom of all forum, profile, dashboard, and cache pages.   

[+Team Microdot]

50 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm sorry, I know it's probably my mistake, but I'm missing something. I looked back in the thread but can't find what you're talking about. What happened in the past few days? A reviewer deleted an NA because you hadn't visited GZ? That would be a most annoying development.

Not deleted - dismissed.

Reviewer note:

 

As the poster of the NA log would not appear to have paid a recent visit to the cache (no found or DNF log), I can see no reason why it has a NA log. The log from 14 Sept 2017 indicates that the cache contains a new (and dry) log inside the container.

[+Harry Dolphin]

50 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I haven't seen any unjustified NA logs. Not a single one.

Had a newby whose first find was my MKH.  (Nice area.)  He put an NA because it was an magnetic keyholder with a small log in it.  Gee!  Sign that back of the log! 

[+barefootjeff]

12 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

NA logs by persons who have not recently visited the cache are disallowed - even when the cache logs clearly demonstrate that the cache is long past its best.

I'm not saying I agree with it (I don't) but the Help Centre does set out the three conditions when logging an NA is deemed appropriate:

Quote

• Property owners, business owners, or local authorities or law enforcement expressed concern during your search for the cache.
• Cache placement or searching for the cache damages the area or defaces property.
• You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

So yeah, unless it's one of the first two, it looks like you have to search for and DNF a cache before NAing it, but as long as you're not the first or second DNFer and the CO hasn't responded to those DNFs, it's apparently fine even if there's nothing wrong with the cache and it's just a tough hide. It seems also from this that you shouldn't NA a cache that's findable but just a lump of mouldy pulp, even if there are unanswered NMs, because getting that smiley is all that matters.

Edited March 15, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+CAVinoGal]

9 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

And as this seems to be the way things are going I also won't be introducing any newcomers as it's no longer something I feel any pride in.

 

9 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

I took my toys and quit. 

 

9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

That's something I've done in the past year. When asked about geocaching I've told people that I don't recommend it because it's become a geolitter game. 

...  I've seen a steady decline for the last 8 years.

But I have been gobsmacked by the amount of new geolitter that replaces the reviewer-archived geolitter. I wasn't counting on that. It has made me also consider giving up on NMs and NAs....

  Did we get into geocaching at a bad time?  This all sounds quite negative, and we just "celebrated" one year of geocaching ... still learning, still enjoying it.  Yes, we've seen enough LPC's and GR caches to be good with never finding another one of those - and we would rather find an ammo can in the woods (or even buried under a foot of snow!), but in our suburban location, we get a lot of LPC's, guardrails, and fence post hides.  Some in good shape, some a pile of mush.  No, it's not always pleasant to find those - but there are enough hiking trails and clever hides and fun things to keep us looking for more caches.

We've also hidden a few, and we try to make them unique, and even if it's a guardrail hide, there's a twist so it's not just "another film can with a magnet" in the GR.Time and effort is put in to the write up (description, even if no one reads it, but we're hoping they will) and the hide itself.  We try to make it a bit of a challenge, but fun when you do find it.  It seems maybe our efforts are not going to be as appreciated as they would have been 10 years ago???

Back on topic, I do log NM's if we come across a cache that needs it; we also carry spare logs and baggies and try to leave a cache in better condition than we found it if we can.  We have some CO's who "allow" other cachers to do maintenance and replace containers that they then log as OM - but we've already come across several duplicate containers and enough confusing logs to realize throwdowns by visiting cachers (who then claim a find) is not really helping.  The CO really does need to visit and verify if the cache is indeed missing and in need of replacement - or if someone, or several someone's just didn't find it, placed a throwdown, and the original is still there and BOTH are gathering signatures and finds!!!  So confusing!

[+Team Microdot]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It seems also from this that you shouldn't NA a cache that's findable but just a lump of mouldy pulp, even if there are unanswered NMs, because getting that smiley is all that matters.

Certainly does when the reviewer - who knows the CO is out of the game and will never maintain the cache and knows that the leaky container has already resulted in a number of caches becoming pulp, negates your NA log because supposedly someone left some dry paper in it several months previous.

It's also worth noting that one of the subsequent loggers who didn't mention a problem (if you don't mention it, it isn't real of course) was a notorious armchair logger and so probably never visited GZ at all

 

[+justintim1999]

6 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

 

  Did we get into geocaching at a bad time?  This all sounds quite negative, and we just "celebrated" one year of geocaching ... still learning, still enjoying it.  Yes, we've seen enough LPC's and GR caches to be good with never finding another one of those - and we would rather find an ammo can in the woods (or even buried under a foot of snow!), but in our suburban location, we get a lot of LPC's, guardrails, and fence post hides.  Some in good shape, some a pile of mush.  No, it's not always pleasant to find those - but there are enough hiking trails and clever hides and fun things to keep us looking for more caches.

We've also hidden a few, and we try to make them unique, and even if it's a guardrail hide, there's a twist so it's not just "another film can with a magnet" in the GR.Time and effort is put in to the write up (description, even if no one reads it, but we're hoping they will) and the hide itself.  We try to make it a bit of a challenge, but fun when you do find it.  It seems maybe our efforts are not going to be as appreciated as they would have been 10 years ago???

Back on topic, I do log NM's if we come across a cache that needs it; we also carry spare logs and baggies and try to leave a cache in better condition than we found it if we can.  We have some CO's who "allow" other cachers to do maintenance and replace containers that they then log as OM - but we've already come across several duplicate containers and enough confusing logs to realize throwdowns by visiting cachers (who then claim a find) is not really helping.  The CO really does need to visit and verify if the cache is indeed missing and in need of replacement - or if someone, or several someone's just didn't find it, placed a throwdown, and the original is still there and BOTH are gathering signatures and finds!!!  So confusing!

I guess it depends on the quality and grit of the current "veteran" cachers out there.    I shake my head when I hear some of the negative comments coming from so-called veteran cachers.   These are the people who actually have the knowledge and ability to help right the ship,  yet most seem to think that complaining on the forums is the best way to do that.  

Despite of all the prognostications of doom,  I still think this is one hell of an activity.   It's sad to think that future generations may not be able to enjoy the experience of Geocaching because the previous generation didn't think it was worth fighting for.  

Like it or not I'm part of the "woe is me" generation.   

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I guess it depends on the quality and grit of the current "veteran" cachers out there.    I shake my head when I hear some of the negative comments coming from so-called veteran cachers.   These are the people who actually have the knowledge and ability to help right the ship,  yet most seem to think that complaining on the forums is the best way to do that.  

Despite of all the prognostications of doom,  I still think this is one hell of an activity.   It's sad to think that future generations may not be able to enjoy the experience of Geocaching because the previous generation didn't think it was worth fighting for.  

Like it or not I'm part of the "woe is me" generation.   

I always believed that by caring about cache quality and logging NM's and NA's where appropriate, I was helping the reviewer. If nothing else I thought I was at least taking heat off the reviewer from the most vocal antagonists in the local community - saving the reviewer from being the bad guy if you will.

It turns out that the reviewer doesn't want that help - so who am I to argue?

I know where I'm not wanted.

I did engage in a short dialogue with the reviewer and was told to go to appeals if I wasn't happy.

So that's that.

 

[+justintim1999]

20 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I always believed that by caring about cache quality and logging NM's and NA's where appropriate, I was helping the reviewer. If nothing else I thought I was at least taking heat off the reviewer from the most vocal antagonists in the local community - saving the reviewer from being the bad guy if you will.

It turns out that the reviewer doesn't want that help - so who am I to argue?

I know where I'm not wanted.

I did engage in a short dialogue with the reviewer and was told to go to appeals if I wasn't happy.

So that's that.

 

Change your approach, change your tactic but don't simply give up.   If you truly think it's a lost cause and are determined to quit the game, why go out of your way to ruin it for everyone else?   I'm sure many are oblivious to the issues discussed here and with any luck they'll remain that way.   At one time you must have enjoyed Geocaching.  Remember what that felt like?   Why rob others of that experience?    Don't you think that years of Geocaching has given you experience and knowledge that would be invaluable to a new cacher?   Do you think that Geocaching would be better if you picked up all your caches and moved on? 

To me your relationship with your reviewer is the challenge.  Your love of Geocaching is already common ground.   Start there.     

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Change your approach, change your tactic but don't simply give up.   If you truly think it's a lost cause and are determined to quit the game, why go out of your way to ruin it for everyone else?   I'm sure many are oblivious to the issues discussed here and with any luck they'll remain that way.   At one time you must have enjoyed Geocaching.  Remember what that felt like?   Why rob others of that experience?    Don't you think that years of Geocaching has given you experience and knowledge that would be invaluable to a new cacher?   Do you think that Geocaching would be better if you picked up all your caches and moved on? 

To me your relationship with your reviewer is the challenge.  Your love of Geocaching is already common ground.   Start there.     

Oh I'm not throwing in the towel.

I'm just going with the tide.

I'll still be active - and maintain my own caches.

As for your suggestion that I am somehow ruining things for everybody else - you can't be serious.

[+justintim1999]

38 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Oh I'm not throwing in the towel.

I'm just going with the tide.

I'll still be active - and maintain my own caches.

As for your suggestion that I am somehow ruining things for everybody else - you can't be serious.

It's more of the negative vibe in your comments.   I'm saying this as a friend so please take it as one.   Sometimes we forget that not everybody that reads this stuff is an experienced cacher.   We all make mistakes, reviewers included.   I'd like to see new cacher/reviewer relationships start without any pre-conceived notions.  If someone thinks posting DNF's and NM's are a waist of time than chances are they'll stop doing it and that's the last thing we need.

I've read where some have intimated they're packing up their stuff and going home.  But for the wrong reasons.  As usual I multi quote without actually using the multi quote so that part of my response was not directed at you.   

Do me a favor and think about your own reviewer situation and how you could go about mending that.   

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Do me a favor and think about your own reviewer situation and how you could go about mending that.

I'm adapting my behaviour to fit with the local reviewer's attitude - so there's nothing to mend.

[+justintim1999]

24 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm adapting my behaviour to fit with the local reviewer's attitude - so there's nothing to mend.

Now if you didn't use the word "attitude" I'd buy it.     Got to be careful here.  Do I really want to psycho analyze the Microdot?   Maybe better to not even peer over the edge of that rabbit hole. 

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

31 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm adapting my behaviour to fit with the local reviewer's attitude - so there's nothing to mend.

Now if you didn't use the word "attitude" I'd buy it.     Got to be careful here.  Do I really want to psycho analyze the Microdot?   Maybe better to not even peer over the edge of that rabbit hole. 

As a friend I would steer you away from reading negative connotations into the word attitude.

Dictionary definitions include : a settled way of thinking or feeling about something,  an individual's predisposed state of mind regarding a value and a feeling or opinion about something or someone.

See? No drama

[+justintim1999]

15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

As a friend I would steer you away from reading negative connotations into the word attitude.

Dictionary definitions include : a settled way of thinking or feeling about something,  an individual's predisposed state of mind regarding a value and a feeling or opinion about something or someone.

See? No drama

Ok so you choose your words cleverly I'll give you that but I still sense a disturbance In the force.  

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Ok so you choose your words cleverly I'll give you that but I still sense a disturbance In the force.  

For me disturbance arises from the idea that our local reviewer's approach seems to oppose what happens elsewhere in the country and, in my opinion, opposes Groundspeak's much promoted drive to improve cache quality via tools like the CHS.

The cache I NA'd is unhealthy but, it seems, not unhealthy enough.

[+justintim1999]

25 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

For me disturbance arises from the idea that our local reviewer's approach seems to oppose what happens elsewhere in the country and, in my opinion, opposes Groundspeak's much promoted drive to improve cache quality via tools like the CHS.

The cache I NA'd is unhealthy but, it seems, not unhealthy enough.

You both see things differently.  Shocker!     So you think they're doing a bad job because there not giving your NA the weight you think it deserves?    See,  I'd like to think I have a good relationship with my reviewer that I could ask her what her views are on NM's and NA and the like.   Notice how I used the word "ask".   If for some reason I found myself questioning her judgement I'd do just that.   Knowing how she sees these things would better help me know when and where to use a particular log.  I still may not agree with here 100% but at least I'll know what she's thinking.    

Edited March 15, 2018 by justintim1999
spelling

[+Team Microdot]

16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You both see things differently.  Shocker!     So you think they're doing a bad job because there not giving your NA the weight you think it deserves?    See,  I'd like to think I have a good relationship with my reviewer that I could ask her what her views are on NM's and NA and the like.   Notice how I used the word "ask".   If for some reason I found myself questioning her judgement I'd do just that.   Knowing how she sees these things would better help me know when and where to use a particular log.  I still may not agree with here 100% but at least I'll know what she's thinking.    

Been there, done all that, steered in the direction of appeals = end of the line.

I am tired of swimming against the tide.

If TPTB are determined to prop up abandoned junk then I'm past caring.

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Certainly does when the reviewer - who knows the CO is out of the game and will never maintain the cache and knows that the leaky container has already resulted in a number of caches becoming pulp, negates your NA log because supposedly someone left some dry paper in it several months previous.

It's also worth noting that one of the subsequent loggers who didn't mention a problem (if you don't mention it, it isn't real of course) was a notorious armchair logger and so probably never visited GZ at all

 

A new log in a broken mess of a cache is always a joy to find.

 

Why does a reviewer (or the person who left the new log, soon to be a wet mess along with everything else) think that this is good for the pastime? 

I removed the abandoned junk, posted an NA, posted the photo, included the history of cache (repeated found logs reporting the problem, one NM) in the log, and posted that I would give the owner an authentic Lock & Lock (to replace this dollar store mess) if they contacted me. They never did. And thankfully my reviewer has never banned me. The cache listing was disabled the same day and archived a month later.

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by L0ne.R
Added brackets

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Been there, done all that, steered in the direction of appeals = end of the line.

I am tired of swimming against the tide.

If TPTB are determined to prop up abandoned junk then I'm past caring.

What if I could get your reviewer to come on here and discuss the issues?  

I'd say you were a better man than I.

 

[+justintim1999]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Been there, done all that, steered in the direction of appeals = end of the line.

I am tired of swimming against the tide.

If TPTB are determined to prop up abandoned junk then I'm past caring.

What if I could get your reviewer to come on here and discuss the issues?  

[+Team Microdot]

15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Been there, done all that, steered in the direction of appeals = end of the line.

I am tired of swimming against the tide.

If TPTB are determined to prop up abandoned junk then I'm past caring.

What if I could get your reviewer to come on here and discuss the issues?  

Anybody else seeing posts pop up twice - and then, after replying to the first one it disappears?

 

[+justintim1999]

18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Anybody else seeing posts pop up twice - and then, after replying to the first one it disappears?

 

I'm getting your response listed before my question.

[+justintim1999]

13 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

I don't think you could arrange that. 

Your probably right but there's no harm in trying.   At least I hope not.

[+justintim1999]

30 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

You never know with TPTB here. 

 

31 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

You never know with TPTB here. 

The fact that you even think they're could be some type of retaliation for simply asking a question is part of the whole problem.    They're human beings just like us.     Now because of their position they may not be able to respond to my request but I'd bet most would jump at the opportunity to tell their side of the story if they could.  

[+justintim1999]

41 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

You never know with TPTB here. 

In case your are right and this is my last post on these forums I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their input.   I've learned a lot.

[+justintim1999]

12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

In case your are right and this is my last post on these forums I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for their input.   I've learned a lot.

Except how to multi quote.   Sorry NiraD, I know you tried.

[+dprovan]

17 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Not deleted - dismissed.

Reviewer note:

As the poster of the NA log would not appear to have paid a recent visit to the cache (no found or DNF log), I can see no reason why it has a NA log. The log from 14 Sept 2017 indicates that the cache contains a new (and dry) log inside the container.

OK, that seems more reasonable. The reviewer didn't say you aren't allowed to post an NA, he just considered it and is dismissing it because it contradicts evidence from someone that has visited the cache. But the real point was that you said it was bad but other reports said it wasn't. So if you had gone to the cache, and then reported the same thing in your NA -- that it was OK but you think it should be archived because of the history -- he still would have dismissed your suggestion to NA because history isn't justification enough for him.

I see your point, though. Depending on the exact case, I can imagining agreeing that a cache should be archived even though it currently has a dry log in it. But I still think the reviewer's being reasonable, and in most case I'd prefer a functioning cache with a bad history over no cache at all. So what I'm saying is that your NA seems reasonable, but so was the reviewer's decision to ignore it.

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

The cache I NA'd is unhealthy but, it seems, not unhealthy enough.

Yes, I think that's a correct summary of the entire exchange. To me, it just proves that universal truth that you win some and you lose some. The dismissal is calm and well explained, so I don't see any reason to think you shouldn't keep trying. As long as your NAs are well supported, I don't see any reason to stop pointing out unhealthy caches even if the reviewer continues to decide that they're not unhealthy enough.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I've read where some have intimated they're packing up their stuff and going home.  But for the wrong reasons. 

You, nor anyone else gets to decide if the reason someone decides to leave the game is right or wrong.   If someone becomes dissatisfied with the game, no matter what their reason, they are under no obligation to keep playing to avoid "ruining the game" for anyone else.  

[+justintim1999]

13 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

You, nor anyone else gets to decide if the reason someone decides to leave the game is right or wrong.   If someone becomes dissatisfied with the game, no matter what their reason, they are under no obligation to keep playing to avoid "ruining the game" for anyone else.  

You,  nor anyone else gets to decide what my opinion is.    

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Anybody else seeing posts pop up twice - and then, after replying to the first one it disappears?

 

Yes:
https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/346045-bug-forum-software-putting-posts-out-of-order/

And even stranger, sometimes a post even disappears for a short while, I guess while the software decides where to move it.  It's all very bizarre.

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

What if I could get your reviewer to come on here and discuss the issues?  

Reviewers (most Mods here are Reviewers...) read these forums often.  IIRC, they even have their own, private forum to discuss issues presented here and get opinions from other Reviewers on issues that might be in their areas.

We've seen Reviewers not regular posters here come into the forums.  It's usually when someone has complained ad nauseam about their Reviewer not being fair to them, maybe just before the thread's closed because it's getting ugly, or the length is just on others definition of  "the".  It may take a while before the Reviewer will finally enter to say "After repeated emails, and responses by me, you still haven't clicked the submit button yet", "That challenge can't be published, won't be published as is, and I've asked if you'd "fix" it four times" kinda stuff.  And the thread now dies on it's own when all realize it was just the OPs error. 

Some threads where posters say things about their volunteer Reviewers (we all can figure who they are...) , I can't blame some to not want to enter to correct an inaccurate notion.  It's just easier.   We see that now with Lackeys that offer help here, then get slammed when it's not perfect to the people "upset", sometimes over unrelated things to what they're fixing for us.  

[+Team Microdot]

46 minutes ago, dprovan said:

18 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Not deleted - dismissed.

Reviewer note:

As the poster of the NA log would not appear to have paid a recent visit to the cache (no found or DNF log), I can see no reason why it has a NA log. The log from 14 Sept 2017 indicates that the cache contains a new (and dry) log inside the container.

OK, that seems more reasonable. The reviewer didn't say you aren't allowed to post an NA, he just considered it and is dismissing it because it contradicts evidence from someone that has visited the cache. But the real point was that you said it was bad but other reports said it wasn't. So if you had gone to the cache, and then reported the same thing in your NA -- that it was OK but you think it should be archived because of the history -- he still would have dismissed your suggestion to NA because history isn't justification enough for him.

I see your point, though. Depending on the exact case, I can imagining agreeing that a cache should be archived even though it currently has a dry log in it. But I still think the reviewer's being reasonable, and in most case I'd prefer a functioning cache with a bad history over no cache at all. So what I'm saying is that your NA seems reasonable, but so was the reviewer's decision to ignore it.

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

The cache I NA'd is unhealthy but, it seems, not unhealthy enough.

Yes, I think that's a correct summary of the entire exchange. To me, it just proves that universal truth that you win some and you lose some. The dismissal is calm and well explained, so I don't see any reason to think you shouldn't keep trying. As long as your NAs are well supported, I don't see any reason to stop pointing out unhealthy caches even if the reviewer continues to decide that they're not unhealthy enough.

I made no claim one way or the other as to the reviewer's reasonableness or lack thereof.

We've seen in this thread though that the reviewer's response is inconsistent with other reviewers and I still claim that the response is inconsistent with Groundspeak's claimed drive toward cache quality improvement.

The so-called evidence you point to does not contradict the existing body of evidence that the cache is abandoned junk. Most recent visitors - those who actually visited the cache rather than armchair logging it - don't mention the condition of the cache at all. One log indicates that a cacher left a dry log in the cache before Winter - nothing more.

What I questioned is that the history is apparently not enough - obviously failed container which has resulted in a number of logbooks becoming pulp, obviously inactive cacher who has abandoned their caches and that eventually they will all end up junk.

I'd prefer no cache at all over a leaky container full of junk propped up for the sake of one more smiley.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

36 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

39 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

You, nor anyone else gets to decide if the reason someone decides to leave the game is right or wrong.   If someone becomes dissatisfied with the game, no matter what their reason, they are under no obligation to keep playing to avoid "ruining the game" for anyone else.  

You,  nor anyone else gets to decide what my opinion is. 

When you use phrase like "why go out of your way to ruin it for everyone else?" you're going beyond just expressing your opinion.  You're also attempting to speak for "everyone else".  You also wrote "Change your approach, change your tactic but don't simply give up."   That's more than expressing an opinion.  That's trying to dictate the "right" way to play, and in this case, how someone should interact with a reviewer.   At the end of the day, if someone does decide to "simply give up" they owe no one an explanation.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

I made no claim one way or the other as to the reviewer's reasonableness or lack thereof.

OK, fine then. I thought you were complaining.

As to the rest, I thought I already said I saw your logic, so I'm not sure why you felt you had to repeat it, but it's nice to have the entire case clearly presented, so thanks.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

When you use phrase like "why go out of your way to ruin it for everyone else?" you're going beyond just expressing your opinion.  You're also attempting to speak for "everyone else".  You also wrote "Change your approach, change your tactic but don't simply give up."   That's more than expressing an opinion.  That's trying to dictate the "right" way to play, and in this case, how someone should interact with a reviewer.   At the end of the day, if someone does decide to "simply give up" they owe no one an explanation.

If someone is hell bent on giving up and leaving the game,  then go.   Why complain on the way out?   In my opinion that can ruin the perception of the game for others.   I agree they owe no one an explanation.  On the flip side they should leave with a little grace.   

"Don't give up"  is my way of expressing my desire to see people work through the problems and remain in the game.   Avoid the knee jerk reaction and instead of packing up and going home try to come up with new ways to initiate change.   A good cacher leaving the game doesn't hurt GS as much as it hurts the game and others who play it.

These are all my opinions, agree or not.  

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

I made no claim one way or the other as to the reviewer's reasonableness or lack thereof.

We've seen in this thread though that the reviewer's response is inconsistent with other reviewers and I still claim that the response is inconsistent with Groundspeak's claimed drive toward cache quality improvement.

The so-called evidence you point to does not contradict the existing body of evidence that the cache is abandoned junk. Most recent visitors - those who actually visited the cache rather than armchair logging it - don't mention the condition of the cache at all. One log indicates that a cacher left a dry log in the cache before Winter - nothing more.

What I questioned is that the history is apparently not enough - obviously failed container which has resulted in a number of logbooks becoming pulp, obviously inactive cacher who has abandoned their caches and that eventually they will all end up junk.

I'd prefer no cache at all over a leaky container full of junk propped up for the sake of one more smiley.

 

Wait a minute, I'm confused which is nothing new but I was under the impression that you were speaking from experience?  I thought the criticisms detailed above were directed at reviewers in general and your reviewer specifically?  Please make a claim one way or the other, I grow weary of trying to read in between the lines.

[+Team Microdot]

18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Wait a minute, I'm confused which is nothing new but I was under the impression that you were speaking from experience?  I thought the criticisms detailed above were directed at reviewers in general and your reviewer specifically?  Please make a claim one way or the other, I grow weary of trying to read in between the lines.

So stop wasting energy on unnecessary tasks.

I am speaking from experience with regard to the local reviewer's reaction to my NA log.

Links have been posted in this thread which demonstrate that this reviewer's reaction is not necessarily consistent with those of other reviewers.

Where's the confusion?

[+Team Microdot]

35 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If someone is hell bent on giving up and leaving the game,  then go.   Why complain on the way out?

Why not?

35 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

In my opinion that can ruin the perception of the game for others.

I'd class that as a service to others if their perception isn't grounded in reality.

[+niraD]

24 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

48 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If someone is hell bent on giving up and leaving the game,  then go.   Why complain on the way out?

Why not?

After all, public geocides are a long-standing tradition.

https://coord.info/GC1XV7P

[+cerberus1]

25 minutes ago, niraD said:

After all, public geocides are a long-standing tradition.

https://coord.info/GC1XV7P

Agreed.  Often the reasons are ridiculous humorous enough that it allows everyone to have fun and relax a bit.