Jump to content

Disappointed by Groundspeaks attitude.


Followers 7

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

My mind reading skills are weak, so I guess I should play safe and just write a blank log so as not to offend the CO by inconveniently writing about something that they have predicted must be part of my subjective experience but must also remain secret.

 

There are players who have desided to post blank logs just for this reason. Tried to post "non spoiling" logs which were deleted and then learned that appeals do not work in that case.

 

8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Of course I'm joking.

 

I am not joking. Instead of deleting the CO should have option to hide the message content from public if CO thinks that the content is not appropriate.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I am not joking. Instead of deleting the CO should have option to hide the message content from public if CO thinks that the content is not appropriate.

 

In the situation which is the subject of this thread I would have to disagree with that idea.

 

If a cache location is gross I'd like to know that so that I can go find caches I'll like better.

 

I don't want to end up in some nasty location because the CO sanitised the facts presented in a previous log.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't want to end up in some nasty location because the CO sanitised the facts presented in a previous log.

 

Do you really read previous log before you head up to the GZ? I have turned around from some caches because the enviroment was not pleasant. What makes you to push forward when you feel the place too nasty?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:
8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't want to end up in some nasty location because the CO sanitised the facts presented in a previous log.

 

Do you really read previous log before you head up to the GZ? I have turned around from some caches because the enviroment was not pleasant. What makes you to push forward when you feel the place too nasty?

 

Not always but in my local area often I'll have new caches on watch so I get to see the early logs and be informed by them.

 

I also have turned around from some caches because the environment was not pleasant.

 

When I've pushed forward it's to be sure that the cache is where I expect it to be and that my log about the state of GZ will be honest and factual. I want to at least give the CO the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I feel strongly that it is important that cachers can be honest in their logs about their experience, even if that means "negative" comments.     It is important for other cachers, and it is important for the CO to get honest feedback.      But the feedback should be constructive, and stick to facts as much as possible.   I  believe it is OK to give opinions too, but make it clear they are an opinion.

 

There is a difference between:

 

"What a disgusting place.   Who would hide a cache here?    And the CO calls it "child friendly"?     Best avoid this cache, it is horrible."

 

and

 

"The initial start of the walk was a nice stroll through the woods.    The actual location of the cache however is in an area with lots of garbage and broken glass, I had to keep a close eye on my child, I did not find the location to be child friendly."

 

I don't believe Groundspeak likes getting involved in disputes between geocachers, they are a point of last resort.   In a case like this, there is a judgement call they have to make.    Is the log "abusive" and the CO was right to delete it?   Or was it a constructive log which pointed out some details which should stand?     

 

 

  • Upvote 6
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Yes, there's a difference between critical (constructively or informatively), and insulting negative.  The latter is completely unnecessary (and typically it's a 'know it when you see it' judgment), the former is helpful, both for CO and other geocachers who choose to read back for information.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 12:29 PM, arisoft said:

 

It the CO feels that your log was abusive, you should edit the log as requested whatever you feel yourself. The CO is like a resposible editor in a newspaper. If the CO do not like your attitide you should change it. It is not matter of who is right or wrong, it is matter of power and responsibility. There are other means to change things. You can report to reviewer or make appeal. I have done both with huge success. No need to create a social drama.

My logs are about my caching experience.  Typically I don't bad mouth a cache for any reason.   Having said that  I'm not going to change a log just because a CO doesn't like and thinks I should.

 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, K13 said:

Maybe the CO would allow a log something like this?...." Wow, what an adventure in finding this cache!  I worked out an alternate route to GZ after finding the locked gate near the roadway.  It was like a scene from a movie as I passed a few piles of decaying woodchips and other rubbish.  I was careful to avoid the broken glass and other debris and the puddles of dank water all about the area. I was thankful that my little guy was at the dentist today, or I would have spent more time looking after him, instead of the search for the cache. Cheers."

 

Sometimes you have to sugar-coat the description of GZ as a part of your story about finding that cache.

This is exactly how I'd handle it.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

My logs are about my caching experience.  Typically I don't bad mouth a cache for any reason.   Having said that  I'm not going to change a log just because a CO doesn't like and thinks I should.

 

Because you want it to be deleted instead or you want to show that you are right in this matter? Do you understand that you are posting the log to the cache owner's publication?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

Because you want it to be deleted instead or you want to show that you are right in this matter? Do you understand that you are posting the log to the cache owner's publication?

There is no right or wrong.   My log is just a record of my experience.   Good or bad. 

 

Imo a cache owner shouldn't have control of what's written in a log unless the log is clearly out of line.   They certainly shouldn't be deleting them just because it paints a less than flattering picture of their cache. 

 

Without having seen this particular cache it's hard to point fingers.   I probably wouldn't have "trashed" the cache myself but I can understand the OP concern.   If the area is as bad as they claim I wouldn't want to be bringing children there either.   Maybe something the CO should consider as well.  

 

K13 has the right idea.   It's not hard to convey certain information without being nasty. 

 

The bottom line is GS has little control over this type of thing.  After all I'm sure they haven't seen the area either so it's a matter of he said she said to them.     It's on the cache owner to use good common sense when placing a cache and assigning attributes.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
On 03/06/2018 at 7:49 PM, arisoft said:

The CO desides what is spoiling and what isn't. You newer know what is the experience the CO wanted you to have.

 

You seem to have an over inflated idea of the CO's importance. Mentioning that the area around the GZ  is strewn with rubbish and pools of liquid of an unknown origin isn't a spoiler and it's not up the the CO to declare it as such; and if  a CO wants us to experience wading through piles of trash (or worse) to find a cache then maybe they should find another  hobby.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 12:59 PM, arisoft said:

Do not forget that you are writing the log primary for the cache owner and yourself. Most content problems arise when you are trying to write a log like a blog, primarily for some other audience.

The log is being written for anyone who may read it. This includes the CO and yourself, but also includes other cachers who may or may not have already found the cache. Sometimes, the most important audience for a log may be future finders so they have an idea of what to expect, either good or bad.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

You seem to have an over inflated idea of the CO's importance.

 

Without the CO there is no log at all. The CO is the only person to please when you post a log because the CO is the only who is obliged to supervise what you are posting. No one else has been selected for this task. What we may notice here from the OP is that Groundspeak is not going to reinstate opinions, only finds if necessary.

 

Anyway this is somehow gray area because there is no clear guideline, but by the guidelines the CO is the only person who primarily decides what is inappropriate. If you want to use your freedom of speech you can do it on some other mediums like this forum. :)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

Without the CO there is no log at all. The CO is the only person to please when you post a log because the CO is the only who is obliged to supervise what you are posting. No one else has been selected for this task. What we may notice here from the OP is that Groundspeak is not going to reinstate opinions, only finds if necessary.

 

 

I really dislike this argument.  Without cachers, there would be no logs either.  I don't aim to please the CO when I post my log.  It's my experience when I went to find their cache and that's what I'm going to write about.  I've found my fair share of caches that weren't that great and will log what I want to log so that the CO and the future finders might get some sense of what I encountered along the way to finding that particular cache.  I usually sugar coat it, if I have a lot to say, but usually these types of caches receive shorter logs because I usually don't have anything nice to say about them so my experience isn't really worth talking about.  However, it's MY experience I'm writing about and the CO, other than the hide, had no part in what I experienced, so I don't consider them when filing my online logs.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
19 hours ago, The A-Team said:

The log is being written for anyone who may read it. This includes the CO and yourself, but also includes other cachers who may or may not have already found the cache. Sometimes, the most important audience for a log may be future finders so they have an idea of what to expect, either good or bad.

 

Yep.  Can't tell you how many times folks heading to areas I've done email with thanks  ... over a simple, but maybe informative log. :)

 

For example, when a new higher-terrain cache came out, the first couple FTF-crazed folks wet-waded a creek in the Winter.  Means they now had to head to the cache and cross it again to get back to parking.

 - They saw the trail was bisected by it, water higher than all rocks, and their only option (well, other than bagging it).

Many mails came, after this old fart who hiked that trail years before if became conservancy property said in the log that I crossed the creek easily, using the cable bridge only 100' N of the trail.    :D

 - It's been there long as I can remember,  and even the CO didn't know about it.   :)

 

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 05/06/2018 at 4:38 PM, cerberus1 said:

who hiked that trail years before if became conservancy property said in the log that I crossed the creek easily, using the cable bridge only 100' N of the trail.    :D

 - It's been there long as I can remember,  and even the CO didn't know about it.   :)

 

Lololololololololol.   Love it. 

Link to comment

I also have an issue that I mailed HQ about and they don't seem to care for some reason.. I'm disappointed!!

 

Here are some rules..

 

  • Geocachers often host "side events" on Mega/Giga-Event weekends. Over the years, some of these side events have become more numerous and can unfortunately distract from the main event. As a result, there are now some limitations on side events around Mega/Giga-Events.
  • 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. Additional activities on the main day should be listed as activities in the main Mega/Giga-Event page (with separate waypoints as needed).

Emphasys on the NOT eligible!! Yet, I have seen such a non official event published, having the same day as the MEGA. No reaction from HQ. The event was very near the MEGA GZ. Additionally, TWO non official events were published a day after the MEGA. Rules for this one:

 

  • Unofficial side events (not hosted by the main event organizers) on the days before and/or after the Giga-/Mega-Event day may only be published if they don't conflict with official side events.

 

These were also very near the MEGA GZ. This happened in May 2018. Yet, in 2016, I was not allowed to have a birthday event one day BEFORE the MEGA. There were NO side events that day. My event would have been approx. 3 miles from the MEGA GZ, and definitely NOT 0.5-1 miles as in the case of the 2018 MEGA.

 

Now, the big question. WHO do the official rules apply to? WHO??? The cachers? The organizers? HQ? It seems that it only applies to some people and NOT everybody!!

 

Now, the rules might have changed since 2016, so whatever that my event could not be published.. (I'm sorry, it WAS published, but then retracted actually...) The reason was that over 900 cachers would come to my event. Would I have been bothered by that? Definitely NO! I would just have been glad that someone comes for my birthday event as nobody wanted to come to that MEGA, no family, no friends. What is wrong with some company? Ok, rules might have changed. But now, in 2018, these rules exist. No side events on the same day as the MEGA, thus such an event was pulished. WHY? WHY? WHY And WHY does HQ not bother resolving this issue?? Rules should apply to everyone!

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

Now, the big question. WHO do the official rules apply to? WHO??? The cachers? The organizers? HQ? It seems that it only applies to some people and NOT everybody!!

Hanlon's razor might be one explanation?  I'm finding that consistency is actually a pretty hard thing to achieve, but of course, we can always aspire for consistency.

 

I sincerely hope you had the best Birthday ever!

Link to comment

Holding a grudge for over two years is harmful.  Take the advice from a Disney Princess and "Let it go".

 

The rules about event stacking have evolved in the last few years, you may have been one of the unfortunate victims of the changing rules.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I am not holding a grudge, I just think it was unfair in my case. BUT, I am asking who the rules apply to as it is clearly stated that it can NOT occur an event on the same day as the MEGA, thus an unofficial event was published in May 2018. So, RECENTLY!! Read my post carefully. It is a recent rule with a recent happening!! Still, HQ does not seem to care. In my case they cared 2 years ago. WHY don't they care NOW??

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Just a little over a year ago folks could log a find on their own caches, and log caches more than once.  Things change. 

It's Groundspeak's playground, and though we may have some input, they write the guidebook on how to play. 

I don't believe change is because "they don't care",  or we wouldn't be seeing them requesting input on "cache quality".    :)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Bernike said:

I am not holding a grudge, I just think it was unfair in my case. BUT, I am asking who the rules apply to as it is clearly stated that it can NOT occur an event on the same day as the MEGA, thus an unofficial event was published in May 2018. So, RECENTLY!! Read my post carefully. It is a recent rule with a recent happening!! Still, HQ does not seem to care. In my case they cared 2 years ago. WHY don't they care NOW??

 

Groundspeak doesn't often publish event caches; local reviewers usually do.  If the rule on unofficial events near a MEGA or GIGA hasn't changed, then it's possible that a reviewer published an event without regard to that rule -- just as your event was initially published.  Reviewers are not perfect, and sometimes caches get published that are not 100% compliant with the guidelines.

 

If you want the answer as to why your event didn't get published edit: was retracted and yet these others were allowed, I suggest you contact the reviewer that published the event caches and ask.  Otherwise, unless they see this thread and post a reply, your question may not be answered here.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Imagine this. A virtual in Estonia was archived. A team of 10+ cachers logged it in 2016 after the archiving. Nowhere it is written that you cannot log an archived virtual. HQ locked it after a year and changed everyone's log after the archiving into a DNF. Why? After several contact mails to HQ, they don't answer anything. I also wrote to them about the MEGA and the event being on the same day. A rule was broken. They actually CAN fix the problem, but they give a dadgum. This post is about being disappointed in HQ, that is why I wrote my story. They can be unfair.. I do not like this. I think they should concentrate on fixing caches and event that are against the rules and then ask about cache quality. HQ/Groundspeak quality, anyone??

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bernike said:

A virtual in Estonia was archived. A team of 10+ cachers logged it in 2016 after the archiving. Nowhere it is written that you cannot log an archived virtual.

 

Why they did that? Didn't they know that the cache was archived?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It is not forbidden even when the cache is not in place but didn't they know that the cache was archived?

 

16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It is not forbidden even when the cache is not in place but didn't they know that the cache was archived?

 

I know of someone who is logging all the nearby archived virtual caches, whether they are there or not.  

Edited by Harry Dolphin
Clarification
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

It is not forbidden even when the cache is not in place but didn't they know that the cache was archived?

What difference does it make? A find is a find, archived or not. It IS allowed to log archived caches. If they don't want people to log something, then lock it or I dunno. But it is insane to MODIFY their logs from found to DNF a year after they found it. Whaaat? No explanation, nothing.

 

A friend of mine was denied to get a challenge published because of some upcoming rules. What? So, if something is NOT in power YET, it can still block a cacher from having a cache published. So, a criminal may be charged with a crime there is no law for yet, but it will come in the near future. How insane is that??

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

A friend of mine was denied to get a challenge published because of some upcoming rules. What? So, if something is NOT in power YET, it can still block a cacher from having a cache published.

I am not a lackey, a volunteer reviewer, or any other kind of insider, but based on what I've read, when the guidelines are updated, they are often updated to reflect the (undocumented) policies that the volunteer reviewers have already been enforcing for some time. It's not so much a matter of a guideline blocking a cache before it comes into effect, as a matter of an undocumented guideline blocking a cache before it is documented.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, niraD said:

I am not a lackey, a volunteer reviewer, or any other kind of insider, but based on what I've read, when the guidelines are updated, they are often updated to reflect the (undocumented) policies that the volunteer reviewers have already been enforcing for some time. It's not so much a matter of a guideline blocking a cache before it comes into effect, as a matter of an undocumented guideline blocking a cache before it is documented.

Logically, a law/rule comes out first and then it is applied. Otherwise, HQ can just claim whatever they want. This is not fair!

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

When you log online something you are not supposed to log, you always take a risk that the online log will be deleted anytime later.

Define 'not supposed to'! It was no sign at all that the archived cache could/shall not be logged.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Usually archived caches are rarely found and logged by finders. Did the cachers know the virtual had been archived?

 

Rules for events have changed over the past year. This may be why your event was not published. Reviewers publish caches and events, not Groundspeak.

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

 

Edited by 321geocache
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

The only archived virt in Estonia was archived in 2008,  because the info needed for it was no longer present, and the property owner (landlord as translated by google) no longer wanted people to visit. In 2016 (!) some people logged it found? 

 

Yeah.  Looks like fifteen people.  Of course they could not have had the answer to qualify for the find.

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

It's not forbidden to log archived caches if they are still in place..

True, but if 10 geocachers are logging a virtual well after it's been archive that looks to me like they're gaming the system and logging finds because they *can*, not because they should. They're taking an advantage of a loop hole.   GS leaves archived caches available for logging to allow those that have *recently* found it to log their finds.  It's cachesr like those 10 that are abusing the system just so they can add a +1 to their find count. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Bernike said:

Logically, a law/rule comes out first and then it is applied. Otherwise, HQ can just claim whatever they want. This is not fair!

 

Life isn't always either logical or fair, neither are humans, and that includes caching database running ones. HQ is the only arbiter of what does or does not get into their database, they are a business not a democratically elected government with checks and balances and international law to ensure their behaviour is fair. In short, they can claim whatever they want.

Best be philosophical and move on.

 

If  those virtual loggers got to GZ and saw whatever it was*, they had the full experience of the virtual, no  one can take that away. They get to keep the treasured memory of the fun they had (if indeed they had that fun ... ) and just lost a meaningless +1 on a database.

 

 

 

* Virtual caches are not there but you find them.  It's a bit of a conundrum that something that used to not be there but could be found  is now not there and actually not there so can't be found  ... <sound FX of brain exploding>

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

Yeah.  Looks like fifteen people.  Of course they could not have had the answer to qualify for the find.

They HAD the answer, the plaque/infoboard was still in place, otherwise they would't have logged it.. Einstein! :D 

 

But my point is, if HQ goes and modifies their logs, then why the hell don't they do anything against an event that broke the rules? Just to be clear, I am not grudging over that my event was retracted. I am grudging over the fact that the rules are not applied equally to EVERYONE. If I can't have an event that breaks the rules, then the next one, either. Isn't that logical? Okay, a reviewer made a mistake. But when I contact HQ to do something about is, just like they DID something on the archived virtual, then they have power to DO SOMETHING. In any case.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hal-an-tow said:

 

Life isn't always either logical or fair, neither are humans, and that includes caching database running ones. HQ is the only arbiter of what does or does not get into their database, they are a business not a democratically elected government with checks and balances and international law to ensure their behaviour is fair. In short, they can claim whatever they want.

Best be philosophical and move on.

 

If  those virtual loggers got to GZ and saw whatever it was*, they had the full experience of the virtual, no  one can take that away. They get to keep the treasured memory of the fun they had (if indeed they had that fun ... ) and just lost a meaningless +1 on a database.

 

 

 

* Virtual caches are not there but you find them.  It's a bit of a conundrum that something that used to not be there but could be found  is now not there and actually not there so can't be found  ... <sound FX of brain exploding>

Groundspeak has rules. For EVERYONE. Seemingly, there are customized exceptions. That is what I can't understand. The WHY part.. Why aren't the rules applied to everyone? Why are there exceptions?

Link to comment

Perhaps reading the terms of use again would be fruitful. Nowhere does it say that Groundspeak is bound by their own rules, nor that they never change, nor that exceptions cannot be made, nor that mistakes must always be reversed. We might want what we think is most fair for us, but we instead can only trust that decisions made are in our best interest - recognizing that it's a worldwide game and we don't always get what we want.  That is why there's the "no precedent" rule - because too many people complain and rant about someone else getting something they didn't and if 100% consistency was strictly enforced across the board around the world (which is what it would come to) the game would be a chaotic mess with zero volunteers willing to put up with the constant littlest demands for fairness.

 

Let it go, man. We've all (well most of us at least) been there to some degree. It ain't worth it in the grand scheme.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Perhaps reading the terms of use again would be fruitful. Nowhere does it say that Groundspeak is bound by their own rules, nor that they never change, nor that exceptions cannot be made, nor that mistakes must always be reversed. We might want what we think is most fair for us, but we instead can only trust that decisions made are in our best interest - recognizing that it's a worldwide game and we don't always get what we want.  That is why there's the "no precedent" rule - because too many people complain and rant about someone else getting something they didn't and if 100% consistency was strictly enforced across the board around the world (which is what it would come to) the game would be a chaotic mess with zero volunteers willing to put up with the constant littlest demands for fairness.

 

Let it go, man. We've all (well most of us at least) been there to some degree. It ain't worth it in the grand scheme.

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

  • 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...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...