Jump to content

Disappointed by Groundspeaks attitude.


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

But...

 

You’re disappointed that you’re event was pulled unfairly.  (I understand this.)  And you’d feel better if HQ now pulled somebody else’s for the same reason?  (Not so much this.)

 

Well, my event was against the rules back then. Not much to do against it. Felt like it was an unnecessary rule. But a rule is a rule and it should be valid for EVERYONE!! I would be happy if everyone were treated equally. No exceptions! Otherwise why have rules? :( If A can, then B as well. If A can't, then B either. Simple as that. It would be way less complaints if they treated everyone equally and listened to the cachers when they point out mistakes. If a rule is flexible, then this should be stated, maybe?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bernike said:

I would be happy if everyone were treated equally. No exceptions!

 

In other words, since your event has already passed and can't be held, then you'll only be happy if these other events are retracted as well.

 

That sounds fair and totally not like you're holding a grudge.

 

</sarcasm>

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

They are not decribed by Groundspeak as  'rules' but as 'guidelines'.

There is a subtle  difference  in meaning which provides wiggle room to excuse any inconsistencies on their part.

 

"Additional events for the same main day and area of the Mega/Giga-Event are not eligible to be published. The "main day" of the Mega/Giga-Event is the date on the cache page."

 

Then what is this? Some get to have a published event, some don't.. It's clearly stated: no events on the same day and area as the MEGA.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

In other words, since your event has already passed and can't be held, then you'll only be happy if these other events are retracted as well.

 

That sounds fair and totally not like you're holding a grudge.

 

</sarcasm>

"Additional events for the same main day and area of the Mega/Giga-Event are not eligible to be published. The "main day" of the Mega/Giga-Event is the date on the cache page."

 

Nowhere in the above quote it is stated that there can be exceptions.

 

/not sarcasm

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Bernike said:

Then why are there rules? :)))))))

 

Technically there are no rules.  They are "Listing Guidelines and Requirements".  Semantically, I consider a Requirement to be the same as a Rule but there are many guidelines that are just that:  guidelines that may be flexible,  subject to interpretation, and may have different levels of enforcement.

 

One of those guidelines is the "No Precedent" guideline:

 

"There are no precedents for placing geocaches. Past publication of a similar geocache is not justification for publication of a new geocache. If a geocache was published that you feel violated the guidelines, you may report it. However, the existing geocache may have been placed prior to a guideline change, and may be grandfathered."

 

That means that although an event you tried to get published was declined, that decision may not be a precedent for some other event cache someone tries to published.  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Technically there are no rules.  They are "Listing Guidelines and Requirements".  Semantically, I consider a Requirement to be the same as a Rule but there are many guidelines that are just that:  guidelines that may be flexible,  subject to interpretation, and may have different levels of enforcement.

 

One of those guidelines is the "No Precedent" guideline:

 

"There are no precedents for placing geocaches. Past publication of a similar geocache is not justification for publication of a new geocache. If a geocache was published that you feel violated the guidelines, you may report it. However, the existing geocache may have been placed prior to a guideline change, and may be grandfathered."

 

That means that although an event you tried to get published was declined, that decision may not be a precedent for some other event cache someone tries to published.  

Call it whatever, rules, listing guidelines and requirements, the name doesn't matter. Here is an excerpt from 2018: "Additional events for the same main day and area of the Mega/Giga-Event are not eligible to be published. The "main day" of the Mega/Giga-Event is the date on the cache page."

 

When my event was published, then shortly after retracted (YES, it was published altough it violated the "guidelines"), then it was actually a harder 'rule' that included one day before and after the MEGA that one couldn't have an event. Now it is milder and only includes the MEGA day. It still is a violation if an event is being published on the MEGA day, additionally being close to the MEGA GZ. It should have been retracted like mine in 2016.

 

So, technically, both my event in 2016 and the one in 2018 violated the exact same rules/guidelines. Both were published, but only one retracted. Here's where the problem starts. The sentence "Additional events for the same main day and area of the Mega/Giga-Event are not eligible to be published." states clearly what applies. No way this can be misinterpreted nor it could be in any way flexible! This was valid both in 2016 and in 2018, but still, the outcome/"solution" is different.. Interesting.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Some reviewers are dogs. They don't read very well - so sometimes they mess up on the guidelines. And if you send them dog biscuits, your event may be published and not retracted. Or maybe a human saw your 2016 event that was published by a dog reviewer and retracted it, but they didn't catch the 2018 one.

 

Seriously, though - you aren't going to get an answer here in the forum. We can speculate, but I highly doubt your area reviewer is going to come on and explain what happened.

Edited by TriciaG
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, K13 said:

OOPS!  I guess I had one of those "bads".  It is the thread hijacker to whom I refer, not the OP.

 

Thought that would be the case.

 

I read back through from page 1 and the OP was very polite and relaxed.

 

I sometimes enjoy observing how the degree of leeway differs from poster to poster.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 2018-06-27 at 3:13 AM, K13 said:

So far, the OP has called others names, and derided others. I'm disappointed in her attitude.

 

I'm sure a moderator will be stopping this soon, as it is getting nowhere.

Who called others names? I didn't hijack this thread, I am also disappointed by Groundspeak's attitude. The topic IS about that.. Problem? ;)

Link to comment

Bernike -

 

As we are not Geocaching HQ Lackeys or Reviewers, we probably won't be able to help you out. I recommend you contact the reviewer that pulled the event. If you still do not understand why the event was pulled after speaking with the reviewer, you can contact Geocaching HQ. Unfortunately, I doubt we will be able to help as we are just cachers, not reviewers or lackeys.

 

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, 321geocache said:

Bernike -

 

As we are not Geocaching HQ Lackeys or Reviewers, we probably won't be able to help you out. I recommend you contact the reviewer that pulled the event. If you still do not understand why the event was pulled after speaking with the reviewer, you can contact Geocaching HQ. Unfortunately, I doubt we will be able to help as we are just cachers, not reviewers or lackeys.

 

 

I know, but I try to seek help wherever I can =)

Link to comment

I, for one, have been disappointed with Groundspeak lately.  I contacted Groundspeak about a throw down found it log and they could care less.  I even provided photo evidence of the original container and log.  Granted it's up to the cache owner to delete bad logs but these cache owners are no longer active.  (Haven't logged-on in 3 years.)

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/6773759f-d7d2-4e2f-88e7-e48961cec9f8.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by OCamera
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, OCamera said:

I, for one, have been disappointed with Groundspeak lately.  I contacted Groundspeak about a throw down found it log and they could care less.  I even provided photo evidence of the original container and log.  Granted it's up to the cache owner to delete bad logs but these cache owners are no longer active.  (Haven't logged-on in 7 years.)

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/6773759f-d7d2-4e2f-88e7-e48961cec9f8.jpg

 

 

 

 

File a NM or NA log if a problem exists. Indicate owner no longer active and not maintaining. Include your pictures.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

What MNTA said.

Most would probably shrug it off because the cache itself doesn't necessarily need maintenance - it's more policing the fact that the listing is effectively being 'abused' by cachers and the CO isn't doing anything, thus the CO could be caught in shirking their responsibilities, ahving the offending cache archived.  Them's the rules though...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, OCamera said:

I, for one, have been disappointed with Groundspeak lately.  I contacted Groundspeak about a throw down found it log and they could care less.  I even provided photo evidence of the original container and log.  Granted it's up to the cache owner to delete bad logs but these cache owners are no longer active.  (Haven't logged-on in 7 years.)

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/6773759f-d7d2-4e2f-88e7-e48961cec9f8.jpg

 

 

 

 Better yet collect the throw down cache and thank the cacher. Place it as a new cache in the area.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, OCamera said:

I, for one, have been disappointed with Groundspeak lately.  I contacted Groundspeak about a throw down found it log and they could care less.  I even provided photo evidence of the original container and log.  Granted it's up to the cache owner to delete bad logs but these cache owners are no longer active.  (Haven't logged-on in 7 years.)

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/6773759f-d7d2-4e2f-88e7-e48961cec9f8.jpg

 

 

 

Done.

3 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 Better yet collect the throw down cache and thank the cacher. Place it as a new cache in the area.

 

Ummmm....no.  That would be called stealing.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, OCamera said:

I, for one, have been disappointed with Groundspeak lately.  I contacted Groundspeak about a throw down found it log and they could care less.  I even provided photo evidence of the original container and log.  Granted it's up to the cache owner to delete bad logs but these cache owners are no longer active.  (Haven't logged-on in 7 years.)

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/6773759f-d7d2-4e2f-88e7-e48961cec9f8.jpg

 

 

 

 

You went directly to Groundspeak? Although it may appear cache owners are no longer active when they haven't logged into the website for a long time, I would have messaged the CO anyway. Then after a reasonable amount of time without a response, I would have contacted the reviewer. 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Nomex said:
26 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 Better yet collect the throw down cache and thank the cacher. Place it as a new cache in the area.

 

Ummmm....no.  That would be called stealing.

 

 

I don't know why the guy who littered gets rewarded with a smiley. The guy doesn't even live in the state.  He lives 5 states away. I think he has no intention of monitoring, maintaining and retrieving that container. Here's his public log:

 

"Knowing M*** didn't find it is a pretty good clue that it isn't here. Seeing where it had to be hidden, it was pretty obvious that it isn't here. SO...I replaced it with a new container"

 

The guy who left litter gets rewarded. The guy who removed litter gets told he shouldn't steal. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

 

I don't know why the guy who littered gets rewarded with a smiley. The guy doesn't even live in the state.  He lives 5 states away. I think he has no intention of monitoring, maintaining and retrieving that container. Here's his public log:

 

"Knowing M*** didn't find it is a pretty good clue that it isn't here. Seeing where it had to be hidden, it was pretty obvious that it isn't here. SO...I replaced it with a new container"

 

The guy who left litter gets rewarded. The guy who removed litter gets told he shouldn't steal. 

Ditto

 

Maybe the reviewer should lock the account for a month or so. That would go a long way to stoping the hated practice placing throw downs.

 

It was trash and needs to be cleaned up.  If you don't pick it up who will. Same goes with abandoned caches specially after archival. How long is prudent before geo-litter is cleaned up. In the NW we are big into recycling if the container is fully functional why not reuse it. 

 

I placed my first cache in a location that had been used previously for about 8 years. While searching for a good spot I found the original plus two throw downs.  Can't blame the subsequent finders that logged the wrong log but the first did not even bother it seems.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

The guy who left litter gets rewarded. The guy who removed litter gets told he shouldn't steal. 

I don't know, a Smiley sounds like scant reward for public humiliation in the Forum to me ;)

 

Quote

Maybe the reviewer should lock the account for a month or so.

Edit to add clarification so there's no misunderstanding.  Reviewers do not have the admin privileges to take actions on individual accounts.  Only the Staff at HQ can do that.

Edited by Nomex
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Nomex said:

Reviewers do not have the admin privileges to take actions on individual accounts.  Only the Staff at HQ can do that.

 

It sounds like the staff at HQ can take action but chose not.  After all, this cacher admitted to not finding the cache, placed a throw down, and claimed it as found when in fact, the original cache was still there. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Nomex said:
3 hours ago, MNTA said:

 Better yet collect the throw down cache and thank the cacher. Place it as a new cache in the area.

 

Ummmm....no.  That would be called stealing.

 

Just for clarification, and remember we're talking about a throw-down here and not the original container, is it unacceptable for even the CO to remove a throw-down? Is that considered stealing? And if so, what can a CO do when someone drops a throw-down at their cache site, beyond asking the thrower-downerer to remove it?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Just for clarification, and remember we're talking about a throw-down here and not the original container, is it unacceptable for even the CO to remove a throw-down? Is that considered stealing? And if so, what can a CO do when someone drops a throw-down at their cache site, beyond asking the thrower-downerer to remove it?

Someone left a throw down at my cache because he didn't see mine. I checked on my cache and took the throw down. I'm certainly not going to leave it there, and do not consider it stealing. I messaged the cacher and gave him the option of picking it up, or meeting to hand it off,  and when he didn't respond I used it for a new cache. I do not consider leaving it there to be a reasonable option.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Just for clarification, and remember we're talking about a throw-down here and not the original container, is it unacceptable for even the CO to remove a throw-down? Is that considered stealing? And if so, what can a CO do when someone drops a throw-down at their cache site, beyond asking the thrower-downerer to remove it?

 

This is copied and pasted from the geocaching website:

 

Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache. If you do not disable the cache, you may want to honor Found It logs for the throwdown. However, the geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the cache as found.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, MRC1925T said:
18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Just for clarification, and remember we're talking about a throw-down here and not the original container, is it unacceptable for even the CO to remove a throw-down? Is that considered stealing? And if so, what can a CO do when someone drops a throw-down at their cache site, beyond asking the thrower-downerer to remove it?

 

This is copied and pasted from the geocaching website:

 

Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache. If you do not disable the cache, you may want to honor Found It logs for the throwdown. However, the geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the cache as found.

 

So now I'm scratching my head. We have the Help Centre saying to remove a throw-down and a reviewer telling us that doing so is tantamount to stealing.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Interesting. I hadn't thought of the removal of throwdowns as stealing, but it makes sense.  What if the CO maintains their cache and finds another cache thinking that it's a throwdown, and removes it. Is that stealing? The CO is basically removing something that isn't their - whether it's known to be a throwdown or not; whatever it is.  So, no one can the CO's property, but then the arugmentation for that really does mean the CO shouldn't be able to take anything from the vicinity that isn't theirs either. I guess the only difference is the cache is explicitly listed so the owner is known. Any object near the cache isn't. So GC can enforce a don't-take-the-cache (including archived) rule, but can't really enforce COs not taking .. anything that may be near their cache.

 

I think the spirit of the maintenance is that the CO cleans up the cache and the vicinity, ideally as long as ownership of anything 'removed' is known. If not, then it really could amount to the CO stealing another person's property. Whereas someone picking up an archived cache, or adopting it without permission, is much more likely to amount to a cacher taking another person's property.

 

guh it's messy.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So now I'm scratching my head. We have the Help Centre saying to remove a throw-down and a reviewer telling us that doing so is tantamount to stealing.

 

I think the distinction may be in who removes the throwdown : if it is a throwdown masquerading as MY cache, I should remove it as it purports to belong to me, I'm responsible for the listing and the cache it leads to.

If , however I find a throwdown on another C.O.s cache,  I shouldn't  remove it myself as it would be theft.

 

I admit I've removed throwdowns on friends caches twice, but only when I've found both the original and the throwdown (within inches of each other) . Which was the throwdown in each case was obvious , it was a valueless camp free micro container. I uploaded a photo of the throwdown to the listing and left the throwdown's log in the actual cache if there were signatures on there other than just that of the throwdown-er.

 

If I suspect a cache I find is  a throwdown ,  how can I be absolutely sure unless I find the original too? I can't, the log, or even the whole container may have been replaced by the owner and no update on the page made, or maintenance log placed. Plus a C.O. I don't personally know may have different ideas about how to treat this sort of thing, or may even encourage it . So if I suspect a conntainer is a throwdown I'll mention it in my log so the  C.O. can take appropriate action (if they can be bothered) and I add a link to  the appropriate guideline in the hope that the rules on throwdowns become better known.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Just for clarification, and remember we're talking about a throw-down here and not the original container, is it unacceptable for even the CO to remove a throw-down? Is that considered stealing? And if so, what can a CO do when someone drops a throw-down at their cache site, beyond asking the thrower-downerer to remove it?

Sorry for the confusion bj.  MNTA's suggestion of reusing the container for another submission, was the part I was concerned about.  Groundspeak guidance to the Reviewers is to assure that the container being placed and represented on the Listing page, actually belongs to the person submitting the Listing page, and not purloined from some other cache location.  This comes up once in a great while in my area, and I always have to ask if the User actually has permission from the original owner to reuse the container.  If not, I'm required to reject the submission, and ask the submitter to contact the original owner for permission, and to make it clear on the Listing page what is going on, when it gets resubmitted.

 

In your scenario, what a cache owner does to "tidy" up the area of duplicate (or more) containers, is not generally considered the concern of the local Reviewer.

Edited by Nomex
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Nomex said:

Sorry for the confusion bj.  MNTA's suggestion of reusing the container for another submission, was the part I was concerned about.  Groundspeak guidance to the Reviewers is to assure that the container being placed and represented on the Listing page, actually belongs to the person submitting the Listing page, and not purloined from some other cache location.  This comes up once in a great while in my area, and I always have to ask if the User actually has permission from the original owner to reuse the container.  If not, I'm required to reject the submission, and ask the submitter to contact the original owner for permission, and to make it clear on the Listing page what is going on, when it gets resubmitted.

 

In your scenario, what a cache owner does to "tidy" up the area of duplicate (or more) containers, is not generally considered the concern of the local Reviewer.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 6/1/2018 at 8:17 PM, MuzzaDazzler said:

Cerberus1 and nira and probably also Keystone. 

 

Hard to explain for me.  Yes if Groundspeak had asked the CO why they thought it child friendly perhaps I would feel better.  They just told the logger that not all caches are child friendly (of course) but not questioning that this cache has this attribute. Perhaps it is tough to appreciate. I have been there.  It is possibly the most disgusting 1.5/1.5 I have ever done although i have done many extreme caches with a rating of 3 or above where i expect safety issues.  And not child friendly. 

 

So help me understand Groundspeaks attitude or responsibility please. Is referring to a cache site as disgusting abusive such that they should uphold that it is deleted by the CO?

 

And the questioning of the caches suitability for children seeing as that attribute is used is not?

 

 

 

One way to help inform would-be seekers of the distastefulness of a cache location would be to post a picture of the area with your find/DNF/note.  No need for criticism - show the picture and let seekers decide.  The CO can't possibly object to the photo (we assume that it's not a spoiler picture, of course), because it simply shows the site that the CO selected (& apparently thought was wonderful :rolleyes: ).

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
On 7/11/2018 at 6:07 PM, Nomex said:

Done.

 

Nomex:

 

Disabling the geocache isn't going to resolve the issue.  The CO's aren't actively geocaching and haven't been so for quite some time.  In a situation like this, Groundspeak should step in and take care of business.  It's disappointing that there are rules to abide by yet they aren't enforced and some geocache seekers don't abide by them.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, OCamera said:

The CO's aren't actively geocaching and haven't been so for quite some time.

Cache owners are not required to be actively geocaching. They aren't required to login to the web site. Many cache owners continue to monitor their caches via email notifications, even though they don't log Finds any more, and they don't use the web site any more.

 

49 minutes ago, OCamera said:

It's disappointing that there are rules to abide by yet they aren't enforced and some geocache seekers don't abide by them.

One of the "rules" is that the volunteer reviewers disable neglected caches, and then give the owner a month or so to respond before they archive the caches.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, OCamera said:

 

Disabling the geocache isn't going to resolve the issue.  The CO's aren't actively geocaching and haven't been so for quite some time.  In a situation like this, Groundspeak should step in and take care of business.  It's disappointing that there are rules to abide by yet they aren't enforced and some geocache seekers don't abide by them.

 

Agreed all rules need to be enforced. This might make a lot of the complaints go away. I filed a log on cache maintenance yesterday, the CO has not been active in years and all 9 of his other caches are archived and this one is missing for over a year. Seems that if one cache gets archived for lack of maintenance that the others should at least watched with greater scrutiny, should not take 6 DNFs over the year and a NM/NA action to get this cleaned up.  People come and go let's acknowledge this and have policies enforced better and consistently. In an urban setting require cache maintenance logging periodically, in wilderness areas less so maybe.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, niraD said:

Cache owners are not required to be actively geocaching. They aren't required to login to the web site. Many cache owners continue to monitor their caches via email notifications, even though they don't log Finds any more, and they don't use the web site any more.

 

The fact is cache maintenance can and should be logged. Reviewers should be enforcing the red wrench be removed. Maybe an enhancement on the email should be click here when maintenance is completed. Separate out log full from cache needs a lot of help where additional paper is all that is needed. 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, niraD said:

Cache owners are not required to be actively geocaching. They aren't required to login to the web site. Many cache owners continue to monitor their caches via email notifications, even though they don't log Finds any more, and they don't use the web site any more.

 

This particular cache owner has not been maintaining their caches.  A look at their profile page shows that several of their caches were flagged for maintenance and were eventually archived by the Reviewer.

  • Upvote 1
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...
×
×
  • Create New...