Geocacher with hides in Multiple Countries

[+ecanderson]

15 minutes ago, Geo-Sarge said:

Not sour grape. An issue that has needed to be addressed for sometime

 

You haven't got or don't supply us with all of the pertinent facts for this 'other' account that you say got the short end of the stick, so there is absolutely no way to compare the two instances that you find in conflict in your earlier posts that complain of a double standard by gc.com.  Unless you intend to have the guidelines changed, the account that Keystone has addressed seems very odd, but well within the guidelines.

 

So if you are prepared to explain fully what historical details got the bee in your bonnet regarding the 'banished' account, fine.  If not, the merits of the original comparison you have been trying to draw are something only you can determine for yourself, and soliciting help here isn't going to prove very practical.  We don't have those details.  Are you hoping that we'll start some sort of email campaign to gc.com on your behalf?  If not, I would suggest you take your issues directly to them.  The rest of us have no clue what really transpired with regard to the banished account, so why are you using this forum to argue the point?

 

As I noted earlier, it seems Dr. Alien's caches, whatever their merit (or lack) as caches, are being maintained a hell of a lot better than many of the  true 'vacation caches' I often complain about here whose purpose appears to be only to try to get another country souvenir for finders in difficult areas of the world where caches just don't easily work.  Properly placed and maintained caches are the basis for your issue.  Improperly placed and maintained caches are the basis for mine.  Frankly, I'd rather talk about my issue.

 

[+Dame Deco]

9 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

You haven't got or don't supply us with all of the pertinent facts for this 'other' account that you say got the short end of the stick, so there is absolutely no way to compare the two instances that you find in conflict in your earlier posts that complain of a double standard by gc.com.  Unless you intend to have the guidelines changed, the account that Keystone has addressed seems very odd, but well within the guidelines.

 

 

 

 

I do believe he told you that it was Team Sagebrushers.  Don't bother using the site search--just google geocaching and Team Sagebrushers.  They had 24,000 caches in Nevada and other parts west.  I'm not sure I agree that it's the same situation.  But I really hate a 1000-cache series that's only growing and spreading with fake D/T ratings.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Dame Deco

[+Geo-Sarge]

46 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

You missed my state: OK. 

Sorry Max and 99, you are correct, there is one in Okaholma. When I was running thru the account for the numbers I was afraid I would miss one. I corrected the list in the post adding your state to the list. Thanks for catching it

Edited July 24, 2020 by Geo-Sarge
spelling correction

[+Geo-Sarge]

29 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

You haven't got or don't supply us with all of the pertinent facts for this 'other' account that you say got the short end of the stick, so there is absolutely no way to compare the two instances that you find in conflict in your earlier posts that complain of a double standard by gc.com.  Unless you intend to have the guidelines changed, the account that Keystone has addressed seems very odd, but well within the guidelines.

 

So if you are prepared to explain fully what historical details got the bee in your bonnet regarding the 'banished' account, fine.  If not, the merits of the original comparison you have been trying to draw are something only you can determine for yourself, and soliciting help here isn't going to prove very practical.  We don't have those details.  Are you hoping that we'll start some sort of email campaign to gc.com on your behalf?  If not, I would suggest you take your issues directly to them.  The rest of us have no clue what really transpired with regard to the banished account, so why are you using this forum to argue the point?

 

As I noted earlier, it seems Dr. Alien's caches, whatever their merit (or lack) as caches, are being maintained a hell of a lot better than many of the  true 'vacation caches' I often complain about here whose purpose appears to be only to try to get another country souvenir for finders in difficult areas of the world where caches just don't easily work.  Properly placed and maintained caches are the basis for your issue.  Improperly placed and maintained caches are the basis for mine.  Frankly, I'd rather talk about my issue.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Dame Deco said:

 

I do believe he told you that it was Team Sagebrushers.  Don't bother using the site search--just google geocaching and Team Sagebrushers.  They had 24,000 caches in Nevada and other parts west.  I'm not sure I agree that it's the same situation.  But I really hate a 1000-cache series that's only growing and spreading with fake D/T ratings.

 

 Here is the link to Team SageBrushers old GC profile for comparison https://www.geocaching.com/profile/Default.aspx?guid=67d1c7e2-94ab-48a4-a8aa-6815697f369a

[+ecanderson]

I don't care about the profile.  It's the details behind what happened to them that was the basis for your comparison, and we don't have those.  If you believe there was a double standard applied, and we aren't supplied the facts, what was the point of bringing the discussion here instead of directly to gc.com?  Just knowing who they are/were (which you did already mention earlier) isn't going to change that.

Edited July 24, 2020 by ecanderson

[+TmdAndGG]

Team SageBrushers had over 24,000 caches. Doctor Alien only has 1000, and it seems like he's stopped there. The number of hides is not comparable.

Team SageBrushers hid long power trails. Doctor Alien has them in clumps, but not power trails. Not comparable. 

Team SageBrushers had hid lots of every D/T rating, even 5/5s (All fake). Doctor Alien only has ratings of 2.5/1.5, which is not exactly perfectly accurate either, but at least the point isn't just to help loop fizzy grids. Terrain Rating is at least correct. Not comparable.

Please tell me something comparable between Team SageBrushers and Doctor Alien. Thanks

P.S. I feel like the reason that all of the Doctor Alien hides say that they were placed for the MidWest Geobash is because they actually are. Some sort of massive geo-art, or puzzle or something like that. Just my theory

[+barefootjeff]

On 7/20/2020 at 3:42 AM, Keystone said:

I can only speak for the Doctor Alien caches that I've personally reviewed and published, but the local hiders/caretakers have terrific reputations as cache hiders and cache maintainers in their local area.

 

I don't know who the local hider with a terrific reputation is in Australia, but looking at the logs makes me realise why they want their identity kept secret. These caches were published just two months ago:

 

Quote

Found it

11/06/2020

Most awesome cache??? The caches must be pretty crap on your home planet then. This was not only one of the worst types of containers to use as a cache, it wasn't even disguised or magnetised, and was placed right on the edge of a very busy highway. It just looked like someone couldn't be bothered taking a few more steps to the bins to dispose of their minty-fresh rubbish. A shame really.

 

Quote

Write note

15/07/2020

Stopped in here just for the cache this morning but sadly all I found was what I first thought was a disintegrating old snotty tissue in the dirt. Upon closer inspection I noticed it was a log book. How sad! There was definitely no way I could sign it either. And I was so looking forward to seeing what this most awesome cache looked like.

So this is a note and a need maintenance log instead.

 

 

Quote

Found it

06/07/2020

Cruising the brand new concrete today, I stopped by to find this intriguing cache Hmmm !!

The cache wasn't found where the GPS was pointing !! A read of previous logs got me on the right track though. And I was soon standing there with the cache in hand, completely underwhelmed

The cache notes promise soooo much, but the cache just doesn't hit the promised 'Umami' note

 

From the logs, it appears that these are all Eclipse mint tins which aren't waterproof to start with and, in the coastal subtropical environment in which they're hidden, quickly turn to this:

 

 

Given the description, the size being listed as Other and all being D2.5, this comes across at best as a sick joke. At least when a local cacher hides these things under their own name, the community can point them towards more suitable containers and if they ignore that advice they deserve the reputation they get, but the anonymity of this series I'm afraid just leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.

 

I accept that the reviewers are limited in what they can do and have to publish them if they meet the guidelines, but maybe those guidelines need to be strengthened when it comes to anonymous hides scattered far and wide.

[+Dame Deco]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I don't know who the local hider with a terrific reputation is in Australia, but looking at the logs makes me realise why they want their identity kept secret. These caches were published just two months ago:

 

 

 

 

 

From the logs, it appears that these are all Eclipse mint tins which aren't waterproof to start with and, in the coastal subtropical environment in which they're hidden, quickly turn to this:

 

 

Given the description, the size being listed as Other and all being D2.5, this comes across at best as a sick joke. At least when a local cacher hides these things under their own name, the community can point them towards more suitable containers and if they ignore that advice they deserve the reputation they get, but the anonymity of this series I'm afraid just leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.

 

I accept that the reviewers are limited in what they can do and have to publish them if they meet the guidelines, but maybe those guidelines need to be strengthened when it comes to anonymous hides scattered far and wide.

 

Thank you thank you thank you for posting this!  Exactly!

 

ETA:  went through and read the Australia logs--it's a total bait and switch.  And I had the exact same reaction in Ohio--? container, 2.5 D, cache description--I was excited to go look for it, then it's a total dud.  Nice to know that's how they feel down under, too.  Sick joke, indeed.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Dame Deco

[+Sapience Trek]

4 hours ago, Geo-Sarge said:

Keystone, do what you will. I welcome more input from any other reviewer on this. Actually I would be interested to know as you stated earlier that Groundspeak is fully aware of the account, who I can communicate with at Groundspeak about the standard used for the publishing of this account.

.....

4 hours ago, Geo-Sarge said:

 

Why is a group of cachers all located in Ohio allowed to have the guidelines bent to allow the publishing of these caches.

 

And again I will say, this is not an attack on the members of Dr Alien, or the reviewers. It is a question on guideline interpretation by the reviewers. If this is permitted for one then I or any other cacher can do the exact same thing to have cache placements pubished anywhere in the world.

 

As previously explained multiple times in this thread, if you have a documented local maintainer your cache will likely get published.  The maintainer doesn't have to be public on the cache page.

 

You are making comparisons with the sagebrush account which are invalid.  Stop beating that dead horse.

 

If you want to get caches published in other countries, then work with a known local cacher and the local reviewer on a proper maintenance plan.

 

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, Sapience Trek said:

If you want to get caches published in other countries, then work with a known local cacher and the local reviewer on a proper maintenance plan.

 

Yep, then you too can scatter rusty mint tins far and wide with logs that become snotty tissues.

 

Where is the horse and the rider?

Where is the horn that was blowing?

They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow.

The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.

How did it come to this?

[+Sapience Trek]

Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

Yep, then you too can scatter rusty mint tins far and wide with logs that become snotty tissues.

 

When maintenance plans fail, then future cache placements will become more difficult.

[+barefootjeff]

1 minute ago, Sapience Trek said:

 

When maintenance plans fail, then future cache placements will become more difficult.

 

The maintenance plans have already failed because mint tins need maintenance almost before they're hidden.

[+Sapience Trek]

7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The maintenance plans have already failed because mint tins need maintenance almost before they're hidden.

 

Fortunately there is a process to report caches that need maintenance and archival.   By the way, I have a mint tin that's been hidden for almost 17 years now with no maintenance issues.

[+Max and 99]

11 minutes ago, Sapience Trek said:

 

Fortunately there is a process to report caches that need maintenance and archival.   By the way, I have a mint tin that's been hidden for almost 17 years now with no maintenance issues.

I was going to take a look at this but your profile says you have no hides. 17 years is a very long time for a cache to do that well! That is quite amazing.

Got it. Your profile explains why. 

Sorry about that, Chief! ?

Edited July 24, 2020 by Max and 99

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Sapience Trek said:

 

Fortunately there is a process to report caches that need maintenance and archival.   By the way, I have a mint tin that's been hidden for almost 17 years now with no maintenance issues.

 

Maybe, but New York is a far cry from coastal New South Wales where mint tins barely survive 17 weeks, let alone 17 years. The only ones I've seen last have been inside something else that protects it from the weather and salty air.

 

Look, I have nothing against the principle of these hides and after Keystone's initial post it sounded like everything was above board and legit, but that all changed when I looked at the logs on the five that have been placed in Australia. The caches are only 2 months old but many of the logs are derogatory and one has already had an NM posted and is currently disabled. If they'd been decent containers in hiding places that were consistent with briansnat's "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot" then great, but they're nothing like that. They might comply with the letter of the Guidelines but they violate the spirit of the game at almost every level:

• inaccurate D/T rating
• an unambiguous micro listed as "Other"
• an anonymous hider
• a container unfit for its hiding place and environment
• a location that does nothing to make visiting the cache worthwhile
• a hide that's the exact opposite of the desription's claim to be the "most awesome caches of all time"

I doubt I have anywhere near the esteem of Keystone's hiders with terrific reputations but if approached by the organisers I wouldn't touch these with a barge pole.

Edited July 24, 2020 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+Hynz]

4 hours ago, Sapience Trek said:

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yep, then you too can scatter rusty mint tins far and wide with logs that become snotty tissues.

 

When maintenance plans fail, then future cache placements will become more difficult.

Difficult for whom?

For the freshly created "DoctorAlien" account? Big deal.

For the person/group behind "DoctorAlien"? Desirable but realistic?

For the local maintainer? I wonder if the reviewer can keep track of that buried information in the long time.

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

20 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I am pretty sure he is referring to adventure labs that are promoting quick +1 in easy to reach locations 

 

You mean Virtual Wherigos?

 

19 hours ago, Dame Deco said:

We're just grumbling a bit with like-minded people.  That is one of the purposes of a forum, is it not?   No despair needed on your part, nor on ours.

 

You make the forums sound like another place people can complain about everything and change nothing. That's a reason to despair in and of itself.

[Rock Chalk]

I'm closing this thread as several participants are, at the very least, stretching the forum guidelines on courtesy and personal attacks. It's gone on long enough.