Jump to content

I Have A Gripe


Recommended Posts

First, this is the first time I have used this forum. I have a gripe. This is only my opinion, but I think that this site is sucking all of the fun out of Geocaching.

 

When I joined, I realy appreciated this hobby, the site and the people who spend time making it work. I subscribed and started placing my own caches in an effort to contribute to the hobby (What is this anyway? hobby/sport/game/other). I still like geocaching, but I can not say that I am fond of the site anymore. Yes, for those of you who are waiting to flame me, I have only placed 5 caches(that were approved) and logged 126 finds.

 

The last straw was having a cache archived out of the blue (GCGXD3). It was marked inactive since someone had walked off with the container. I have a new cache container and I am waiting for my GPS to get repaired so I can verify the coordinates when I place it. I needed to move it 30 to 40 feet so as to prevent (delay) it from getting stolen again. Now, I guess I don't have to worry about it.

 

Prior to this it was trying to get some historical landmarks approved as

Virtual caches. Yes, I have read many of the posts on this topic. It strikes me as a lot of people whining (both sides). Minimum guidelines for legal and safety reasons aside, we are making rules just to make rules. Complexity for complexity's sake.

 

Is it so hard to send an email out saying "respond to this within two weeks or we will archive this cache". I have better things to do than recreate my cache site pages from scratch just because someone has an itchy trigger finger sitting on the archive button.

 

This is getting to be too much like work. I have heard the term geo-muggle for those people who do not participate and sometimes raiding the caches. Has the term geo-nazi been used? I have to admit that one comes to mind when my cache pages get archived.

 

OK now that I have managed to alienate just about everybody, flame away if that is your desire. Thoughtful responses will be read and appreciated.

 

Thanks,

JakeandtheFatman

Link to comment

Your cache which was archived was made inactive in October, 2003, and finally archived March 30th today. In your previous note you indicated you will re-open it in a few weeks. Come on now, you're complaining about a cache that was made inactive for 5 months?

 

This isn't Geocaching.com web site feature related, so moving it into general discussions.

Link to comment

That seems like a long time to be inactive, so I see why it was archived. I have seen instances, however, where a reviewer made a note on inactive pages asking for an update. I think such a note or an email inquiry about the cache would be a good idea before archiving. That basically would allow the cache owner to respond. Regardless, you can also write the reviewer and ask that the cache be unarchived.

Link to comment

OK, first, what the big J said. It's not the end of the world. It can be unarchived if you replace it. But come on, were you REALLY going to? The cache looks like it lasted MAYBE a week after you placed it. 2 people got to find it.

It lasted ONE WEEK, but it's been keeping other cachers from hiding a cache in that area for 6 MONTHS. Seems pretty selfish to me. Also, since the idea of maintaining your caches goes back to the very beginnings of the game, it's not like it's some new rule that you need to replace or archive your caches in a timely manner.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

Thanks for your responses, I did send an email requesting that the cache be un-archived.

 

Jeremy -

Yes, I am complaining about having my cache archived without some kind of warning. Not to get into a long sob story, but the last few months have been overly eventful for me, but not in a good way.

 

This is the first approved cache that was archived (for me). However, I have also had several that were pending approval archived because I had a mistake on the page. All were something that could have been fixed in 30 seconds once it was pointed out. This is an on-going issue from my point of view.

 

Someone needs to hide the archive button from reviewers. Have them send an email when something is wrong. Let the owner archive the site if it can't be fixed. If there is a problem that could be corrected, let them fix it without having to recreate the whole page. Especially if it is pending approval, who is going to see the page anyway?

 

How about a category that deactivates the page and notifies the owner that it will be archived in 30 days if no action is taken? Not exactly sure what that action would be, maybe reactivate the page which resubmits it for approval.

 

I noticed that the "my caches" page has changed. If it is not already a feature, how about a button that allows me to unarchive a cache.

 

Thanks again,

Jakeandthefatman

Link to comment
Your cache which was archived was made inactive in October, 2003, and finally archived March 30th today. In your previous note you indicated you will re-open it in a few weeks. Come on now, you're complaining about a cache that was made inactive for 5 months?

 

This isn't Geocaching.com web site feature related, so moving it into general discussions.

This cache has been inactive since November 18, 2003, has been discussed to death in the BCGA forums, would not be approved today if it were submitted, yet has not been archived. In this example, the cache owner has stated numerous times that it will be reactivated "soon", but despite the number or requests from local cachers to the owner to reactivate this extremely popular cache, it remains deactivated for no really good reason. B)

 

Is the decision to archive an inactive cache based on a specific amount of lapsed time or is it up to the discretion of a local approver? What is the prescribed timeframe that a cache can remain inactive before being automatically archived? Based on your feedback to JakeandtheFatman, I would think this cache should be close to being archived. :D

 

_____________

Gorak

Link to comment

Wow, you guys respond faster than I can type.

 

Thanks for the cheddar, it is most appreciated.

 

Yes, I really do have a replacement cache sitting on my coffee table waiting to go out. I had to find a suitable magnet to attach to the container. I believe that the first one disappeared because the original magnet was too weak. I am also learning as I go that placing caches is more of an art than a science. If it wasn't the magnets fault that it disappeared then it was clearly mine.

 

I did not realize that "maintaining" a cache meant that I had to have a ready spare waiting to materialize in the location within a day, week or month. Maybe we could all get together add another useless rule to accomodate this requirement and further guideline this sport/hobby/activity (someone please help me out here) into oblivion. Where is that cheese?

 

Thanks

JakeandtheFatman

Link to comment
Is it so hard to send an email out saying "respond to this within two weeks or we will archive this cache".

Apparently it is. Not only would it require effort, it would involve treating those who hide caches with respect, which is, as far as I can tell, against official Groundspeak policy.

Link to comment

Usually a "this cache should be archived" note does come up first. In this case it didn't. I'll post a message to the admins to remind them to do this. Probably due to the 5 month lag there was an assumption that if the cache was ever going to be replaced (within 2 weeks the owner note originally said) then it probably would never reappear. As said before, worst case the cache is returned, page updated, and with an email to the approver this cache would be relisted.

Link to comment
I did not realize that "maintaining" a cache meant that I had to have a ready spare waiting to materialize in the location within a day, week or month. Maybe we could all get together add another useless rule to accomodate this requirement and further guideline this sport/hobby/activity (someone please help me out here) into oblivion.

Some people would expect most people replace or repair the cache within 5 or 6 months...

 

As for your problems with approvals - I haven't had that. If there is a problem my local approver always emails me to ask for more information or to clear stuff up. I thought this was standard practice. Who's your approver and can you give us some examples of the reasons your "new" caches are archived instead of approved?

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

This is the first approved cache that was archived (for me). However, I have also had several that were pending approval archived because I had a mistake on the page. All were something that could have been fixed in 30 seconds once it was pointed out. This is an on-going issue from my point of view.

 

In all fairness, the approvers have a lot of caches to look at besides yours. If there was a problem with the original submisson it will probably take a little time for them to get back to you.

 

With that being said, I also agree that you should be notified in advance that your cache is about to be archived. Then again I also believe that if your cache has been in the inactive status for more than 60 days it should automatically be archived.

 

With as many players as there are today and the scarce hiding spots, it seems unfair that you tied an area up for 5 months denying others a chance to place a well maintained cache there.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Is it so hard to send an email out saying "respond to this within two weeks or we will archive this cache".

Apparently it is. Not only would it require effort, it would involve treating those who hide caches with respect, which is, as far as I can tell, against official Groundspeak policy.

That my friend I believe to be an unfair statement. I've been around these forums and on this site a long time and I've never seen an Admin or an Approver not treat members with the respect that they deserve.

 

If you know of a case where this is not true, please point it out for the rest of us.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Not only would it require effort, it would involve treating those who hide caches with respect, which is, as far as I can tell, against official Groundspeak policy.

What an attitude -- and biased outlook! He man, I have had scores of interactions with Groundspeak volunteers (remember that word -- they are not getting paid for all these headaches), helping with approval and other aspects of 40+ caches of my own and 10+ of my son's. All done quickly, carefully, and in a friendly manner. Don't generalize unless you know what you are talking about.

Link to comment
That my friend I believe to be an unfair statement. I've been around these forums and on this site a long time and I've never seen an Admin or an Approver not treat members with the respect that they deserve.

It has not happened to me, but then, I am very, very careful that any caches I place will certainly be approved. And I grant that the tone of the guidelines is better than it was. But the overall attitude that cache hiders should be grateful that they are allowed to list their caches on the site has not changed, nor has the attitude that most cache hiders will do the wrong thing unless they are treated as children.

 

The specific incident that caused me to come to these conclusions did not involve me in any way; it was a matter in which a well-respected cache hider was treated with utter contempt by an approver and, subsequently, geocaching.com. As a result, he archived and removed all his caches, and the area in which he cached is considerably poorer.

 

The current incident is, to my mind, evidence that the attitude persists. The fact that approvers are volunteers is of no consequence; if getting professional behavior requires paying approvers, then that is Groundspeak's responsibility.

Link to comment

fizzy, I ask that you keep in mind that there are always two sides to every story. I've dealt with most of the approvers in one form or another, I find it hard to believe that they would treat anyone with utter contempt, unless it was deserved.

 

I have never gotten the impression that we were treated as children...unless of course it was deserved. I also have never gotten the impression that I should be grateful that GC allows me to post on their site.

 

I believe you should take the treatment that the approvers have given you to be their true attitude. Also they may be volunteers but I've never known them to be anything less than proffesional. Although I do recall UMC going off one night...but he ran out of his "Calming" medication. :lol:

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Usually a "this cache should be archived" note does come up first. In this case it didn't. I'll post a message to the admins to remind them to do this. Probably due to the 5 month lag there was an assumption that if the cache was ever going to be replaced (within 2 weeks the owner note originally said) then it probably would never reappear.

Nope, nope, nope!

 

Five months puts the cache owner at the mercy of the approver. I don't think our volunteer approvers should have to spend time chasing down cache owners after, say, 60 days. The email is a courtesy notice but after 60 days I'd rather see them whack at their discretion.

 

It might be politically correct to notify after five months to avoid this type of complaint but why waste our approver's time? Why should a cache owner expect a notice after that long?

 

If an owner wants to keep their temp archived cache alive they should post a monthly note to that effect and at least tell a good story as to why they haven't been back yet.

 

As cache placers we have to "get over" the rejections from approvers and move on. I've been there with 6 or 8 rejections. Once you go place another cache it all becomes history.

Link to comment
Apparently it is. Not only would it require effort, it would involve treating those who hide caches with respect, which is, as far as I can tell, against official Groundspeak policy.

 

The approvers in my area have treated me with a great deal of respect and treated others here similarly. Most of the other geocachers I've met have had similar experiences. Perhaps your local approver is an abberation and should be reported to the GC.COM authorities, or perhaps through your contentious posts and your obvious contempt for your peers and the approvers and your reputation as a professional malcontent, you have lost the respect you so conceitedly think you deserve.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Not only would it require effort, it would involve treating those who hide caches with respect, which is, as far as I can tell, against official Groundspeak policy.

I found it impossible to let that sentiment go without reply.

 

Just recently I had an issue (private property related) that I e-mailed my local admin for advise on. He/she replied with helpful insight.

 

BTW, all of my caches have been approved on a timely basis. Sometimes a lot faster than I would think is possible.

Edited by UncleRMC
Link to comment

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

:lol: NM

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment
The last straw was having a cache archived out of the blue (GCGXD3). It was marked inactive since someone had walked off with the container. I have a new cache container and I am waiting for my GPS to get repaired so I can verify the coordinates when I place it. I needed to move it 30 to 40 feet so as to prevent (delay) it from getting stolen again. Now, I guess I don't have to worry about it.

 

Ummmm... When the cache isn't actually there, it should probably be archived. As it has been said, you can always get in unarchived.

Link to comment

But the overall attitude that cache hiders should be grateful that they are allowed to list their caches on the site has not changed, nor has the attitude that most cache hiders will do the wrong thing unless they are treated as children.

 

I've personally never felt this from anyone here. I've had a few caches archived recently due to my slack a** not doing maintenence on them for one reason or another. No ones fault but my own. If someone else chooses to use the area then so be it, I had my chance plus I should have reacted sooner anyway. I am however very grateful to have access to this site & all the "perks" that go with. Where else would I go & get the coverage this site offers? If we all just follow the guidelines it'll work out just fine. :lol:

Link to comment
Wow, you guys respond faster than I can type.

 

Thanks for the cheddar, it is most appreciated.

 

Yes, I really do have a replacement cache sitting on my coffee table waiting to go out.  I had to find a suitable magnet to attach to the container.  I believe that the first one disappeared because the original magnet was too weak.  I am also learning as I go that placing caches is more of an art than a science.  If it wasn't the magnets fault that it disappeared then it was clearly mine.

 

I did not realize that "maintaining" a cache meant that I had to have a ready spare waiting to materialize in the location within a day, week or month.  Maybe we could all get together add another useless rule to accomodate this requirement and further guideline this sport/hobby/activity (someone please help me out here)  into oblivion. Where is that cheese?

 

Thanks

JakeandtheFatman

Why do we need a new rule, when the current guidelines already address this:

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. 

 

For all cache types please be sensible when choosing your location for cache placement. Please be aware of what may be a perceived to a non geocacher as dangerous or questionable behavior.  For example, suspicious looking characters wandering about near an elementary school.  The land may be public property, but keep in mind what is on the other side of that property line.  Also, clearly label your physical containers on the outside with appropriate information to reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as a danger to those that are unaware of our sport. 

 

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the approvers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed.  As a courtesy, the approver may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.  But as the cache owner you are responsible for placement and care of your cache. 

 

Before submitting your report you must visit the location to obtain accurate coordinates with a GPS. 

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for checking on your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.).  You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem.  This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing. 

Link to comment

Isn't there an option for cache owners to self-archive their caches?

 

Can a cache owner self-reinstate a self-archived cache?

 

If so, I think it would be the cache owner's responsibility to archive a cache that they may have inactive for a long period of time (insert whatever the consensus period of time is).

 

Lexington, KY is kind of bad with forever unavailable caches. We have some unavailable since Jun 03, Nov 03 (2), and Late Dec 03. Four of the eight or so unavailable caches in the immediate area seem to be good targets for self policing, if the owners can reactivate self-archived caches.

Link to comment

An email should have been sent. That would have just been common courtesy.

 

See this cache for the right way to do this. The admin posts and actions were in response to a 'should be archived' note I left after we could not find it. I subsequently did delete my note, saw no need to keep it after problem was resolved.

 

I don't necessarily think a 'should be archived' note needs to be posted by another cacher in order to archive a cache, but in all cases an attempt should at least be made to contact the owner before it is done. It would be a good idea to note that it was done in the archive note left by the admin.

 

There are a couple of other caches in my area that may need to be archived: this one (has not been found since October '03, and it was noted then that it appears to have been blown up, the last find before that was in August '03, owner has not logged on since October '03) and this one (has been disabled for one year, owner has not logged on since April '03 ). I fully expect that these too will be archived eventually. I will myself make an attempt on the 1st one and if we are unsuccessfull, post an archive note. I have already emailed both owners thru GC.com and asked that they do a maintenance check or archive these caches.

Link to comment
Isn't there an option for cache owners to self-archive their caches?

 

Can a cache owner self-reinstate a self-archived cache?

 

If so, I think it would be the cache owner's responsibility to archive a cache that they may have inactive for a long period of time (insert whatever the consensus period of time is).

 

Lexington, KY is kind of bad with forever unavailable caches.  We have some unavailable since Jun 03, Nov 03 (2), and Late Dec 03.  Four of the eight or so unavailable caches in the immediate area seem to be good targets for self policing, if the owners can reactivate self-archived caches.

A cache owner can temporarily disable a cache and then re-enable it later. The problem is that some temp disabled caches stay that way and are never replaced. An owner can also archive a cache, but then unarchiving requires an email to the reviewer. The key I think is that if a person thinks it will be down a long time to either archive it and then ask to unarchive when it is replaced, or to temp disable and make a note saying that it might be awhile and why. If things change in terms of time, a quick email to the approver and/or a note on the page could keep things updated. The problem with temp disabled caches that don't get replaced is that someone else might be wanting to place an active cache there. If the disabled cache looks like it will not actually reappear, it would be nice to make the area available to others.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment

Sorry for not responding sooner, my bus was delayed on the way home from work. Thanks for the responses, I have read the replies and my rebuttal are below.

 

Jeremy

Usually a "this cache should be archived" note does come up first. In this case it didn't. I'll post a message to the admins to remind them to do this. Probably due to the 5 month lag there was an assumption that if the cache was ever going to be replaced (within 2 weeks the owner note originally said) then it probably would never reappear. As said before, worst case the cache is returned, page updated, and with an email to the approver this cache would be relisted.

 

SBPhishy

Ummmm... When the cache isn't actually there, it should probably be archived. As it has been said, you can always get in unarchived.

 

Actually a new development, I received a reply to my email requesting that the cache be un-archived. It was DENIED. Now to be fair, the email requesting the "un-archival" carried a level of frustration worse than my first post in this topic. Definitely not the nicest email I have sent. However, the request was still DENIED. So let's dispense with the "You could always send an email" argument.

 

fizzymagic

But the overall attitude that cache hiders should be grateful that they are allowed to list their caches on the site has not changed, nor has the attitude that most cache hiders will do the wrong thing unless they are treated as children.

 

I have to admit, I agree with fizzy on this. Take a look at the profile of "Prime Approver", the evil overseer that axed my cache.

 

I do recognize that the approvers are volunteers. I always (ok usually) take a moment and thank them for the time they spend reviewing my pending caches. Actually, I have only dealt with one Approver until today when my cache got archived. He's a nice guy, I have met him at an event cache this year right before my GPS died. Other than the fact that he archives the caches pending approval instead of just sending his usual email with suggested fixes, I don't have any negative criticism about him. I thought the caches that did not get approved were his choice at first, but he explained that Virtual caches are typically not getting approved these days.

 

So as you can tell, my perception of the overall attitude of this sites "overseers" is coming from the decision not to approve virtual caches (really, I am not trying to revive that topic again). Also, the profile from the person who archived my site today(Prime Approver) did not help. After reading his profile, I could only wonder if the approvers have a count on their page that logs the number of caches archived, like we have a counter on our page that show the number of caches found.

 

I will concede that 5 months is too long for an inactive cache. I generally don't have an issue with bumping into people trying to place caches in my neighborhood. Sure, other things happening distracted me from getting this cache online in a timely fashion. Had an email been sent to me a month after the site was made inactive, I would have probably archived it myself.

 

I am only saying that before the cache gets archived, give the owner an opportunity to correct the issue. I do understand the need for human interaction and review, I don't understand the need for an owner to have to email someone else just to edit his own cache page and get it ready for review again.

 

Maybe the process of reviewing caches that are inactive for a long time should be automated and the time would be clearly published on the rules page.

 

I.E. Caches inactive for 60 days will be marked for archival.

 

Then at sixty days the owner would be notified by email and the cache page would have the approval yanked, causing it to go through the review process again once it was reactivated. If the cache is inactive and not approved after 90 days then it gets automatically archived. The time frames above are just figures used for example. Change them if they are too long or too short.

 

The "approvers" would not see it unless the owner had taken action and marked it active again. As I understand the process, caches that are inactive are not visible on the approvers screen.

 

This will be my last post on this tonight, I can hear you guys cheering already.

 

Thanks

JakeandtheFatman

Edited by JakeandtheFatman
Link to comment

Last month I was flamed for taking too long to archive disabled caches. This month it's for moving too fast and not giving enough warning.

 

The published guidelines say "a few weeks." Not five months. Perhaps I should just enforce them literally?

 

This topic and the lack of respect shown for Groundspeak's volunteers makes me wonder why I spend four hours or so each day doing this. I'm taking the rest of the night off. Everyone's caches and e-mails can wait until tomorrow when my blood pressure goes down. Rest assured, I won't call anyone a nazi once I'm a bit calmer.

Link to comment
Actually a new development, I received a reply to my email requesting that the cache be un-archived. It was DENIED. Now to be fair, the email I sent carried a level of frustration worse than my first post in this topic. Definitely not the nicest email I have sent. However, the request was still DENIED.

Was it replaced? Is the cache physically at the location, coordinates changed, and ready to go?

 

The only reason why it would be denied is because the cache isn't there. If that is the case, replace it *then* email the approver. We'll still be here when you get back.

Link to comment
Actually a new development, I received a reply to my email requesting that the cache be un-archived. It was DENIED. Now to be fair, the email I sent carried a level of frustration worse than my first post in this topic. Definitely not the nicest email I have sent. However, the request was still DENIED.

Your request was denied? I'll let others decide the veracity of that statement. Here's the exact response I emailed to you:

 

We'll be more than happy to unarchive it when there's a cache in place.

 

On what planet is that a denial?

Link to comment
Actually a new development, I received a reply to my email requesting that the cache be un-archived. It was DENIED.  Now to be fair, the email I sent carried a level of frustration worse than my first post in this topic.  Definitely not the nicest email I have sent. However, the request was still DENIED.

Your request was denied? I'll let others decide the veracity of that statement. Here's the exact response I emailed to you:

 

We'll be more than happy to unarchive it when there's a cache in place.

 

On what planet is that a denial?

As always, there are two sides to every story, and by my count, the approvers have won every time someone comes in and pitches a whiney fit about their cache being archived or not approved......as far as Prime Approver's profile, I think it's a pretty fair way to size things up.

 

As far as calling approvers Nazi's, personally, I think that should have lit your warn meter up more than just a tad. As far as saying the approvers don't treat us with respect, well....you just have to consider the source......but again, as was already proven in a previous thread, that case also had another side that wasn't at all pretty, so I don't understand why it was even mentioned. Nor do I understand why anyone would even try to pass judgement on the approvers by using a case like that....again, the source. :lol:

Link to comment
Actually a new development, I received a reply to my email requesting that the cache be un-archived. It was DENIED.  Now to be fair, the email I sent carried a level of frustration worse than my first post in this topic.  Definitely not the nicest email I have sent. However, the request was still DENIED.

Your request was denied? I'll let others decide the veracity of that statement. Here's the exact response I emailed to you:

 

We'll be more than happy to unarchive it when there's a cache in place.

 

On what planet is that a denial?

If you haven't placed the six smurfs in the pot, you're not going to get gold

Link to comment
Has the term geo-nazi been used? I have to admit that one comes to mind when my cache pages get archived.

Heh heh.

 

Actually, the term would be "cache-nazi", and that would be me. Just read the description on several of my virtual caches. I coined the term a long time ago I guess. I think I was the first person to use it. I only used it in a comical way though, and I knew much better than to use it as an insult. If you don't email me the answer to my virtual cache questions then you will face deletion. I am a "cache-nazi" in that respect, but would never call anyone else that name.

 

To me, it looks like the cache reviewer is attempting to be more than fair and is trying to work with you.

Link to comment

I'm not going to take sides on this obviously heated discussion (heated being a big understatement). I'm curious about one thing though. Is weather taken into account when determining how long a disabled cache remains untill archiving it? I know some people enjoy snow caching, I don't. I would not want to have to replace a cache when there is 2 feet of snow on the ground. Did weather play a role in the length of time this cache was allowed to remain before archival?

 

Before you look, and subsequently flame me, I have not hidden any caches yet. However just yesterday I cammo painted 4 ammo cans and have loaded them with goodies to hide. When the rain clears I will start hiding them.

 

My 1.5 cents (-.5 cents for not hiding any yet) :lol:

Link to comment

Good policy is good policy regardless of how long the cache has been inactive. The archive this cache note is a poor substitute for an email from the approver. When the archive note it's used if you are awake and paying attention it's like a slap up side the head on a part with fiding DPM in one of your cache logs.

 

Reviewers already have the power, the note is there for us regular cachers to call attention to a cache needing attention.

 

As for the cache being in place, I just had that happen to me. A simple misunderstaning caused by my own efforts, and easily fixed. I never conveyed that I had placed the cache but I had said that I had one ready to go but not yet at the location in an earlier communication. Approvers can only work with the information they have.

Link to comment

Funny how when you want to make a point or gain allies for your cause the details get omitted.

 

Sounds like a fair response to me.

 

It was 5 months. You didn't replace the cache. The guidelines say "weeks". Seems to me like they've been very lenient and willing to work with you.

 

If you don't like the way things are, do what the others who need attention do.

Pitch a fit, do a search for the Geo-suicide note and edit accordingly, take your ball and leave.

 

Kudos to the approvers and all who have stood up for them in here so far.

Without them this site doesn't exist and we have no caches to search for.

Link to comment

I greatly appreciate the effort of the approvers and mods. I've adopted one cache w/ no muss no fuss. It was clearly unmaintained and the owners did not respond to my email.

 

Im a serious lurker, rare poster (for now) type and can appreicate the concerns of many on the site, some things I like some I dont. However, if you send notes to the admins to unarchive and it is inflamatory it will probably make them less likely to move you up the priority list. Just my .02

Link to comment
Kealia, thank you for your support and kind words. But let me be the first to point out: without CACHE HIDERS this site would not exist and there would be no caches to find. The world doesn't revolve around the cache reviewers. :lol:

You're absolutely right. The world revolves around us!

 

We lovez this site!

No we don't, we hatez it. Want to stabs its eyes out, we do!

 

Master is tired.

 

Don't take things to seriously y'all. If the worst thing you can find to complain about in your life has to do with caching you are living well.

 

'Nuff said?

Link to comment
The approvers in my area have treated me with a great deal of respect and  treated others here similarly.  Most of the other geocachers I've met have had similar experiences.  Perhaps your local approver is an abberation and should be reported to the GC.COM authorities

 

I see that I was misunderstood, which means that my original post was inappropriate. I didn't mean in any way to demean any particular approver; my comment was directed at the attitude coming from Groundspeak, not the approvers in general. My local approver is, in my opinion, the best in the country and has always been polite and professional with me.

 

or perhaps through your contentious posts and your obvious contempt for your peers and the approvers and your reputation as a professional malcontent, you have lost the respect you so conceitedly think you deserve.

 

Good point. I don't think I have contempt for the vast majority of my peers; there are a couple of exceptions, however. But looking back on recent posts, I can see that I have let my frustration with the way that geocaching.com has dealt with the challenges the sport is facing show in some inappropriate sarcasm and negative attitudes. Which is kind of ironic, as I am complaining about an attitude in my post above. So your words are well taken. I apologize to any approver who felt I was insulting them.

Link to comment
I didn't mean in any way to demean any particular approver; my comment was directed at the attitude coming from Groundspeak, not the approvers in general.

Actually it was more directed at me, than Groundspeak. Since Hydee took over for the forum moderation we now have a kindler, gentler Groundspeak. And of course I take my meds now.

 

Now I love everyone. Except Fizzymagic, of course.

 

Just kidding.

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...