Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
Team Microdot

Not family friendly?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

Some of us didnt get chance to do the old one. 🤣

 

Fear not - I'm hoping TPTB will see fit to unarchive this one rather than do a new one.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, STNolan said:

While I agree that the archival of your cache was hogwash, the nice thing is that you have the basis for a new Earth Cache already partially designed. It will also serve to bring some earth cachers back to experience the area again, perhaps with a slightly different emphasis.

 

The current EC though features the most rare, beautiful and expensive of the rocks - AND the way these rocks are arranged facilitates straight-forward navigation within the mall.

 

Part of the whole strategy of the thing was to make it straight forward for all - including the novice Earth cacher.

 

Let me tell you - it's not easy nagivating people around a mall without mentioning anything commercial - which is why it took me months of mulling over to finally come up with something workable that I was happy with.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

 

The current EC though features the most rare, beautiful and expensive of the rocks - AND the way these rocks are arranged facilitates straight-forward navigation within the mall.

 

Part of the whole strategy of the thing was to make it straight forward for all - including the novice Earth cacher.

 

Let me tell you - it's not easy nagivating people around a mall without mentioning anything commercial - which is why it took me months of mulling over to finally come up with something workable that I was happy with.

 

 

I hope everything works out; I look forward to doing your urban series... if I ever make it over to that side of the pond!

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

It does seem crazy.   I hope it gets resolved.

 

I do have a personal issue with that shop, but it has nothing to do with family friendliness.    My daughters love it, and I generally end up paying the bill.   Worst experience was when I was in one of these with my wife and daughters, and I was not "allowed" to go find some caches nearby as they were only going to be "a few minutes".    2 hours later, I paid the bill and we left.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

2 hours later, I paid the bill and we left.

 

Now that made me LOL 😂

Share this post


Link to post

If the appeal doesn't go in your favor, can the EC be amended to skip that one part? The cache stays, just without the 'non-family-friendly' stop on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, K13 said:

If the appeal doesn't go in your favor, can the EC be amended to skip that one part? The cache stays, just without the 'non-family-friendly' stop on it. 

I don't want to speak for Team Microdot, but from what's been said here, the problem is that they're not actually being entirely clear on why it was archived, so it strikes me that Team Microdot can only guess at what changes would make them change their minds. Specifically, if the cache was archived because TM enabling the cache against right after the reviewer disabled it seemed like a slap in the face to GS, then there's no reason to think changing anything about the cache would make much difference.

 

That's the bigger issue here. When someone in authority takes action without explaining, I try hard to imagine good reasons they don't explain, but in the end I can never rule out that they're not explaining because they only have bad reasons.

Edited by dprovan
fix typo
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, K13 said:

If the appeal doesn't go in your favor, can the EC be amended to skip that one part? The cache stays, just without the 'non-family-friendly' stop on it. 

 

That's really for Groundspeak to say.

 

As things stand there was no attempt at dialogue from their end, no opportunity to engage like adults.

 

Removing that part is a possibility but it would detract quite significantly from the Earthcache overall as the rock used in that floor is something of a rarity - and it is rather beautiful to behold :wub:

 

To begin with though I'd like to know why the reason given for archival was very different from the reason given for disablement.

 

I'm also concerned that removing that part is tantamount to an admission / acceptance that women's underwear is somehow offensive and there's also the question of where the line is drawn - is swimwear, for example, also considered offensive?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

"We have archived this cache due to one of the locations within the mall/shopping center. This store is not a family friendly store front and we would like to avoid any conflicts with either the company, its employees, or our community of geocachers."

 

To me, this pretty clearly states that the problem isn't necessarily with the underwear shop.

 

('Family Friendly'? Don't they know how families get started?)    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

Reads to me like it could very well be some other store that they have a problem with.  Have you tried to figure out what that could be? Could there be some sort of competing enterprise there? Does anyone know of any historical problems between GS and some other business?

 

I would hate for that to be the reason behind this. That's pretty petty.

 

How about asking the Mall to let GS know that they like having your EC there? Oh, wait - bad idea. That puts a commercial spin on the cache. Permission is one thing, but endorsement is another.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:
Quote

"We have archived this cache due to one of the locations within the mall/shopping center. This store is not a family friendly store front and we would like to avoid any conflicts with either the company, its employees, or our community of geocachers."

 

To me, this pretty clearly states that the problem isn't necessarily with the underwear shop.

 

('Family Friendly'? Don't they know how families get started?)    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

Reads to me like it could very well be some other store that they have a problem with.  Have you tried to figure out what that could be? Could there be some sort of competing enterprise there? Does anyone know of any historical problems between GS and some other business?

 

I would hate for that to be the reason behind this. That's pretty petty.

 

How about asking the Mall to let GS know that they like having your EC there? Oh, wait - bad idea. That puts a commercial spin on the cache. Permission is one thing, but endorsement is another.

 

True enough - it doesn't identify one shop over any of the others in the vicinity.

 

I might well be putting two and two together and getting five - but I doubt it.

 

Then again, the idea that there are any outlets in that mall which aren't family friendly puzzles me.

 

What I can say is that none of the stores visible from the Earthcache locations have changed in the two years since its publication - although admittedly it may be as much as a fortnight since I was last there.

 

Part of the reviewer's response to my communication after re-enabling the Earthcache makes me think that there can only be one shop that TPTB might be classing as not family friendly - or maybe it's the original complainant's own classification that portrays it as such?

 

Quote
From reading the logs on the cache people obviously think that they do need to go into the shop. Due to the nature of the shop, even if they stand outside looking in, I am not happy with what other people might think!
 

 

Of course, without some solid feedback from Groundspeak all we can do is speculate 😕

Edited by Team Microdot
missed a word.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 - it doesn't identify one shop over any of the others in the vicinity.

 

Was curious how one fits "family friendly" in a similar setting.

Here, a sporting goods store/gun shop usually has entire families in it to try on/check out gear, or buy a new firearm for the season. 

Notice a Cabela's on any weekend.   :)

Our local news station's outdoor segment has pics of proud girls in with the men n boys, and the animal they culled. 

 - In another area, folks wouldn't believe that such a thing is legal, much less possible.   It's "family friendly" here...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Does anyone know of any historical problems between GS and some other business?

One that comes to mind had something to do with rockers in the title. A company wide policy if I remember correctly. A handful of Walmart parking lots off limits due to Security people complaining about after hours caching causing issues. I think that was around the same time they banned overnight camping in their parking lots as well for the same reason. I’m sure there are others. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 Does anyone know of any historical problems between GS and some other business?

 

 I remember the "rocker" ones were removed in response from their corporate HQ.   Don't recall why.

 - Didn't much care for accessing a cache while folks are watching me feet away on the other side o the glass.  

 

The other 2/3rds has been stopped by security in parking lots a number of hides, at many businesses,  and asked to leave. 

Not sure about a policy, but those hides do have a reputation for lack of permission... Something the OP's cache had.

 - It doesn't seem the store in the OP was the complainer.   They make sales on people "just looking".    :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Given the hints on the cache page ("it's a secret"), I'm pretty sure I'm looking at the right shop; and it is simply a shop which sells underwear.   I don't see how it is an issue.   There is also a Calvin Klein underwear shop in the same shopping centre.   Many other stores have underwear departments.  

 

Looking at the list of stores, there is one store in that shopping centre which I CAN see a case for not being "family friendly".   Their tag line on their web site is "The Sexual Innovation Experts".   However, this store is all over the UK, in many shopping centres and on main shopping streets.   This store is on a different floor than the "secret" one.     I don't think the cache features this store, but could someone complain about the very existence of such a store in the shopping centre?   Who knows, as we are just speculating.   

Edited by redsox_mark
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

I CAN see a case for not being "family friendly".   Their tag line on their web site is "The Sexual Innovation Experts".   However, this store is all over the UK, in many shopping centres and on main shopping streets.   This store is on a different floor than the "secret" one.     I don't think the cache features this store, but could someone complain about the very existence of such a store in the shopping centre

 

Rest assured, that store does not feature in this EarthCache.

 

Heard nothing from Groundspeak so far 🙁

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Family Friendly is such a vague term. What one family enjoys, another might detest. As long as it isn't an area that exploits a child, any area should be fair game. 10 year olds go hunting and rock climbing and shopping and a myriad of other things.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:31 PM, The A-Team said:

Just to be clear, your EarthCache requires finders to look in the window of the "secretive" store to inspect the floor? I can see why some could interpret that as less family friendly than other examples here like being outside in the parking lot.

I agree but as a cache owner I wouldn't want to be sending families to the parking log of a gentlemen's club either.

 

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 3:52 PM, Team Microdot said:

The store which seems to be an issue now is owned by an American designer,

If I understand this correctly the store changed hands?    If so what was it when the cache was published? 

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 3:52 PM, Team Microdot said:

Does this mean that now any geocache which causes a person to walk past a shop selling women's underwear is at risk of being archived?

You not asking someone to turn their head and walk past something that could be potentially offensive to parents and their children.   Your requiring them to stare in the window.   Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You not asking someone to turn their head and walk past something that could be potentially offensive to parents and their children.   Your requiring them to stare in the window.   Big difference.

 

Not sure I understand...

I thought the OP covered that already with this... "The store has a doorless entrance which must be over twenty feet across.

You could turn your head to one side and walk past without stopping and see enough of the rock to answer the one related question.

If you had to stop and press your face against the glass and fog it up with your breath that might be different - but that's absolutely not the case".

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I agree but as a cache owner I wouldn't want to be sending families to the parking log of a gentlemen's club either.

 

If I understand this correctly the store changed hands?    If so what was it when the cache was published? 

You not asking someone to turn their head and walk past something that could be potentially offensive to parents and their children.   Your requiring them to stare in the window.   Big difference.

 

Team Microdot previously clarified:

 

The store has a doorless entrance which must be over twenty feet across.

You could turn your head to one side and walk past without stopping and see enough of the rock to answer the one related question.

 

(Back to my own comments)

It is a store which sells mainly underwear and nightwear.   Also perfume and some other beauty products.     Sure, there may be someone who thinks wearing fashionable underwear is offensive.   Others may think swimwear is offensive.  Still others might think any clothing which isn't black and covers all skin is offensive.   I can't see how this store violates any reasonable definition of "family friendly".    

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

 

Team Microdot previously clarified:

 

The store has a doorless entrance which must be over twenty feet across.

You could turn your head to one side and walk past without stopping and see enough of the rock to answer the one related question.

 

Thanks for noticing that and pointing it out B)

 

There also seems to be a misunderstanding about the store ownership and some belief that it has changed hands in the time the Earthcache has been in place.

 

For clarity, hold on - I think I've already covered this once...

 

22 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

What I can say is that none of the stores visible from the Earthcache locations have changed in the two years since its publication - although admittedly it may be as much as a fortnight since I was last there.

 

There is quite a lot to this thread - admittedly not as much as the thread our new poster here has been involved in for the past few days, but this one's managed to remain pretty concise and on topic until now - and I'd like to keep it that way if we can.

 

I thought I might have heard something for Groundspeak today but it's not happened yet - unless I've missed it.

 

Fingers crossed.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:
43 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You not asking someone to turn their head and walk past something that could be potentially offensive to parents and their children.   Your requiring them to stare in the window.   Big difference.

 

Not sure I understand...

I thought the OP covered that already with this... "The store has a doorless entrance which must be over twenty feet across.

You could turn your head to one side and walk past without stopping and see enough of the rock to answer the one related question.

If you had to stop and press your face against the glass and fog it up with your breath that might be different - but that's absolutely not the case".

 

Just noticed this one - thanks for the pointer B)

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot
Question retracted

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Just noticed this one - thanks for the pointer B)

 

 

Sorry Team Microdot I didn't see your clarification on the door and the ownership of the establishment.   

 

Thanks to all the kind and understanding people here I think I get it now. 

 

If that's all to the story the archival doesn't make sense to me either.     

 

I'm going to throw it out there because I'm sure others are thinking it.   Maybe it has nothing to do with the cache itself.   Maybe it's something between you and your reviewer.    If I'm wrong than I apologize but when I re-read everything it's the first think that jumped to my mind.               

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If that's all to the story the archival doesn't make sense to me either.     

 

I'm going to throw it out there because I'm sure others are thinking it.   Maybe it has nothing to do with the cache itself.   Maybe it's something between you and your reviewer.    If I'm wrong than I apologize but when I re-read everything it's the first think that jumped to my mind.    

 

Is there anything in particular that makes you think that?

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm going to throw it out there because I'm sure others are thinking it.   Maybe it has nothing to do with the cache itself.   Maybe it's something between you and your reviewer.    If I'm wrong than I apologize but when I re-read everything it's the first think that jumped to my mind.

 

It was archived by a head office lackey, not a reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Is there anything in particular that makes you think that?

Don't start trying to read into things.   It's just seems to me you've had more troubles like this than anyone I've encountered and I don't understand why unless........  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It was archived by a head office lackey, not a reviewer.

The rung of the latter doesn't matter to me.   My inquiry's the same.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
17 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Is there anything in particular that makes you think that?

Don't start trying to read into things.   It's just seems to me you've had more troubles like this than anyone I've encountered and I don't understand why unless........  

 

 

I'm not. That's why I asked you why you think that way.

 

I assume that there's some degree of logical deduction behind your musings rather than nothing more than dramatic conspiracy theory?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I'm not. That's why I asked you why you think that way.

 

I assume that there's some degree of logical deduction behind your musings rather than nothing more than dramatic conspiracy theory?

Comments like this one.    Conversing with you on this forum is purely voluntary so I'm responsible for taking any abuse thrown my way.

 

Now If it was my job to deal with you and these comments  I'm sure I'd have built up a little resentment over time.    Now I don't hold grudges and regardless of what I may think of someone,   I would always be fair.

 

That's me though.

 

I'm not saying this is the case but it did cross my mind.

 

     

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
32 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I'm not. That's why I asked you why you think that way.

 

I assume that there's some degree of logical deduction behind your musings rather than nothing more than dramatic conspiracy theory?

Comments like this one.    Conversing with you on this forum is purely voluntary so I'm responsible for taking any abuse thrown my way.

 

Now If it was my job to deal with you and these comments  I'm sure I'd have built up a little resentment over time.    Now I don't hold grudges and regardless of what I may think of someone,   I would always be fair.

 

That's me though.

 

I'm not saying this is the case but it did cross my mind.

 

Which reinforces my view which is to wait for the appeals process to take its course and to engage in open and honest dialogue with Groundspeak in a bid to achieve the best outcome for all concerned which, in my view, is to get the Earthcache unarchived.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
54 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It was archived by a head office lackey, not a reviewer.

The rung of the latter doesn't matter to me.   My inquiry's the same.

 

it's just if it was the reviewer that had an issue with the cache, why wouldn't they archive it themselves? Why involve a lackey in another country? It seems more likely someone in HQ has gotten wind of an issue of an EC involving lingerie and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Hopefully it can all be resolved through the appeal process with everyone on the same page.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Nobody seems to have mentioned it, but I would wonder if there is another cacher involved with it all.

 

For example, they tried and had issues with the earthcache, and perhaps were offended by the location.

They took it up with the reviewer, who then actioned the cache  (using the commercial guideline).

When they then saw that it was back in play, they raised the flag up to HQ, and got the lackey to take action (using the family friendly verbiage).

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Which reinforces my view which is to wait for the appeals process to take its course and to engage in open and honest dialogue with Groundspeak in a bid to achieve the best outcome for all concerned which, in my view, is to get the Earthcache unarchived.

 

 

Sound strategy.    I really hope it all works out for you

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

it's just if it was the reviewer that had an issue with the cache, why wouldn't they archive it themselves? Why involve a lackey in another country? It seems more likely someone in HQ has gotten wind of an issue of an EC involving lingerie and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Hopefully it can all be resolved through the appeal process with everyone on the same page.

Could be something as simple as that.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Nobody seems to have mentioned it, but I would wonder if there is another cacher involved with it all.

 

For example, they tried and had issues with the earthcache, and perhaps were offended by the location.

They took it up with the reviewer, who then actioned the cache  (using the commercial guideline).

When they then saw that it was back in play, they raised the flag up to HQ, and got the lackey to take action (using the family friendly verbiage).

 

 

Certainly a possibility but based on the reviewer's comments the complaint landed in his lap from above.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

When they then saw that it was back in play, they raised the flag up to HQ, and got the lackey to take action (using the family friendly verbiage).

I would hope that a Lackey would do their due diligence and investigate before invoking their god-like powers to summarily smite the cache. It shouldn't go "cache involves being in the vicinity of an underwear shop" -> Archive.

 

I hope things turn out well. Based on all of the information presented here, I can't see any reason why this cache should have been archived based on the stated grounds.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I also wonder (I havent tried to find and read the cache page) --

 

Maybe a cacher didn't follow the directions correctly, and ended up in the wrong place, which happened to be a not as family friendly place?

I'm sure we will never know the whole backstory, but hopefully it all gets resolved correctly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Conspiracy Theories?

 

OK, here's one:

 

Assuming your appeal fails, ESPECIALLY if you never find out who complained or what they said, watch closely to see if another cache is subsequently published less than 528 feet from Vickie's front door.

 

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
Spelling.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Conspiracy Theories?

 

OK, here's one:

 

Assuming your appeal fails, ESPECIALLY if you never find out who complained or what they said, watch closely to see if another cache is subsequently published less that 528 feet from Vickie's front door.

 

 

But it's an EarthCache and there's no 528 feet proximity restriction with those.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, TeamRabbitRun said:

Conspiracy Theories?

 

OK, here's one:

 

Assuming your appeal fails, ESPECIALLY if you never find out who complained or what they said, watch closely to see if another cache is subsequently published less that 528 feet from Vickie's front door.

 

 

Oh, wait ....Earthcache! 'Proximity' doesn't apply.

 

BUT, maybe our rat doesn't KNOW that!

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Maybe a cacher didn't follow the directions correctly, and ended up in the wrong place, which happened to be a not as family friendly place?

 

There's nowhere in that mall that I would describe as not family friendly.

 

Well, if you pushed me, maybe the underground car park - it does get very busy and might be considered hazardous.

 

The car park also isn't on the list of places one need sto visit to complete the Earthcache though. Or should I say it wasn't on the list of places one used to need to visit to complete the Earthcache.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, fuzziebear3 said:

 

Maybe a cacher didn't follow the directions correctly, and ended up in the wrong place, which happened to be a not as family friendly place?

 


This leaps unbidden to mind.

Not sure which is the most ludicrously silly scenario, the cachers or the priests embarassed by lingerie ...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, hal-an-tow said:


This leaps unbidden to mind.

Not sure which is the most ludicrously silly scenario, the cachers or the priests embarassed by lingerie ...

 

There's a link from the cache page to that video 😊

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

A full week in and no response from Groundspeak ☹️

 

Let's see - your OP was at 12:52pm (PST) on Friday.  So, half-a-day on Friday, or a full day if your OP was hours before you emailed HQ.

Then there was a 3-day weekend, since Monday was a national holiday in the US.

Then there was Tuesday and Wednesday, so two days.

 

That means - 2.5-3.0 business days.  Not even a full 5-day workweek, much less a "full week in".

 

Edited by noncentric

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, noncentric said:
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

A full week in and no response from Groundspeak ☹️

 

Let's see - your OP was at 12:52pm (PST) on Friday.  So, half-a-day on Friday, or a full day if your OP was hours before you emailed HQ.

Then there was a 3-day weekend, since Monday was a national holiday in the US.

Then there was Tuesday and Wednesday, so two days.

 

That means - 2.5-3.0 business days.  Not even a full 5-day workweek, much less a "full week in".

 

Which is why I wrote a full week in and not a full working week in.

 

There was no real need to edit from 2.5 business days to 2.5-3.0 business days - I wasn't about to contest that 😉

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

Which is why I wrote a full week in and not a full working week in.😉

But it hasn't been a full calendar week either.  We're still 2 days away.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, noncentric said:

But it hasn't been a full calendar week either.  We're still 2 days away.  :P

 

True - I thought I'd submitted the appeal on the same day the thread started - but it was the day after.

 

I've now reset my body clock by sitting in front of a very bright light for several minutes 😵

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, The A-Team said:

I would hope that a Lackey would do their due diligence and investigate before invoking their god-like powers to summarily smite the cache. It shouldn't go "cache involves being in the vicinity of an underwear shop" -> Archive.

 

I would hope so too but said Lackey made it clear that my only option was to take it to appeals, which saddens me a little as ending up at appeals feels like something of a failure to me.

 

In this case though both the reviewer and the Lackey made it quite clear that they had no intention of discussing further - not that there was any discussion at all between me re-enabling on the basis that there was no grounds for the alleged commercial guideline infringement and the archival for the alleged 'not family friendly'. 🤕

Share this post


Link to post

Whatever the outcome of your Listing, I’m sure it will be a resounding success for you either way. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

×