Help
This topic is locked
There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy. The situation is as follows. A cache was placed many months or even years ago and has since gone missing. The owner has gone back and replaced the cache with a new cache and archived the old one. He gives the new one a name that is similar to the old one but has "Redo", Do Over", or "Remix" in the title. This reviewer then claims that they cache placement is not allowed because it will cause a FTF frenzy.
I have always been under the impression that Groundspeak does not recognize what a FTF is. They are not defined or mentioned anywhere in the guidelines. As an extension of Groundspeak I would think that to the reviewers, a FTF is irrelevant.
What do you think?
StaticTank
Reviewer claims new cache(s) will cause a FTF frenzy
#3
Posted 17 August 2010 - 01:56 PM
Yeah, I think a page or two is missing. Every cache placed can cause a FTF frenzy.
This post has been edited by jholly: 17 August 2010 - 01:57 PM
#4
Posted 17 August 2010 - 01:58 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 01:33 PM, said:
There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy. The situation is as follows. A cache was placed many months or even years ago and has since gone missing. The owner has gone back and replaced the cache with a new cache and archived the old one. He gives the new one a name that is similar to the old one but has "Redo", Do Over", or "Remix" in the title. This reviewer then claims that they cache placement is not allowed because it will cause a FTF frenzy.
I have always been under the impression that Groundspeak does not recognize what a FTF is. They are not defined or mentioned anywhere in the guidelines. As an extension of Groundspeak I would think that to the reviewers, a FTF is irrelevant.
What do you think?
StaticTank
I have always been under the impression that Groundspeak does not recognize what a FTF is. They are not defined or mentioned anywhere in the guidelines. As an extension of Groundspeak I would think that to the reviewers, a FTF is irrelevant.
What do you think?
StaticTank
That is really all there is to the story. The owner went to replace his caches that had gone missing. He wanted them to be in the same spot but something a little different. He named them similar and it was denied because "it would cause a FTF frenzy". Nothing more to the story.
StaticTank
#5
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:04 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 01:58 PM, said:
That is really all there is to the story. The owner went to replace his caches that had gone missing. He wanted them to be in the same spot but something a little different. He named them similar and it was denied because "it would cause a FTF frenzy". Nothing more to the story.
StaticTank
StaticTank
I want to hear the rest of the story. I don't believe that story for a moment.
#6
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:07 PM
Harry Dolphin, on Aug 17 2010, 02:04 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 01:58 PM, said:
That is really all there is to the story. The owner went to replace his caches that had gone missing. He wanted them to be in the same spot but something a little different. He named them similar and it was denied because "it would cause a FTF frenzy". Nothing more to the story.
StaticTank
StaticTank
I want to hear the rest of the story. I don't believe that story for a moment.
I agree with all the skeptics, there is more to this story.
What GC codes goes with the caches that might be replaced?
How many caches are we talking about? How close are they to one another?
#7
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:09 PM
Harry Dolphin, on Aug 17 2010, 02:04 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 01:58 PM, said:
That is really all there is to the story. The owner went to replace his caches that had gone missing. He wanted them to be in the same spot but something a little different. He named them similar and it was denied because "it would cause a FTF frenzy". Nothing more to the story.
StaticTank
StaticTank
I want to hear the rest of the story. I don't believe that story for a moment.
Why does there have to be more to the story? That is it. If I am going to bother to ask what others think of a situation, I am going to give all of the details. That is it...if I have more to give I will give it when I have it. The situation has been appealed and I will let you know the answer, when I get it.
If you have questions about the story please feel free to ask. I will give you the answer.
StaticTank
#8
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:12 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 02:33 PM, said:
There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy. The situation is as follows. A cache was placed many months or even years ago and has since gone missing. The owner has gone back and replaced the cache with a new cache and archived the old one. He gives the new one a name that is similar to the old one but has "Redo", Do Over", or "Remix" in the title. This reviewer then claims that they cache placement is not allowed because it will cause a FTF frenzy.
I have always been under the impression that Groundspeak does not recognize what a FTF is. They are not defined or mentioned anywhere in the guidelines. As an extension of Groundspeak I would think that to the reviewers, a FTF is irrelevant.
What do you think?
StaticTank
I have always been under the impression that Groundspeak does not recognize what a FTF is. They are not defined or mentioned anywhere in the guidelines. As an extension of Groundspeak I would think that to the reviewers, a FTF is irrelevant.
What do you think?
StaticTank
Must be a newbie reviewer. Please direct them to the E.T. Trail and such like.
I'd like to be there to watch them cry.
#9
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:22 PM
DragonsWest, on Aug 17 2010, 02:12 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 02:33 PM, said:
There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy. The situation is as follows. A cache was placed many months or even years ago and has since gone missing. The owner has gone back and replaced the cache with a new cache and archived the old one. He gives the new one a name that is similar to the old one but has "Redo", Do Over", or "Remix" in the title. This reviewer then claims that they cache placement is not allowed because it will cause a FTF frenzy.
I have always been under the impression that Groundspeak does not recognize what a FTF is. They are not defined or mentioned anywhere in the guidelines. As an extension of Groundspeak I would think that to the reviewers, a FTF is irrelevant.
What do you think?
StaticTank
I have always been under the impression that Groundspeak does not recognize what a FTF is. They are not defined or mentioned anywhere in the guidelines. As an extension of Groundspeak I would think that to the reviewers, a FTF is irrelevant.
What do you think?
StaticTank
Must be a newbie reviewer. Please direct them to the E.T. Trail and such like.
I'd like to be there to watch them cry.
He is not a newbie he has been around for a long time. He has some stubborn policies that don't seem to align with what other reviewers do.
StaticTank
#10
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:23 PM
Harry Dolphin, on Aug 17 2010, 05:04 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 01:58 PM, said:
That is really all there is to the story. The owner went to replace his caches that had gone missing. He wanted them to be in the same spot but something a little different. He named them similar and it was denied because "it would cause a FTF frenzy". Nothing more to the story.
StaticTank
StaticTank
I want to hear the rest of the story. I don't believe that story for a moment.
If that is, as you say, the whole story, then I would say that the reviewer is WAY out of line. Unfortunately, I have to get on the bandwagon. I can't help but think that there has GOT to be more to this.
#11
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:31 PM
If that is indeed the whole story, I would e-mail contact@Groundspeak.com to appeal the decision.
#12
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:33 PM
MooseJawSpruce, on Aug 17 2010, 02:07 PM, said:
I agree with all the skeptics, there is more to this story.
What GC codes goes with the caches that might be replaced?
How many caches are we talking about? How close are they to one another?
What GC codes goes with the caches that might be replaced?
How many caches are we talking about? How close are they to one another?
I will say it again, there is not more to the story.
I don't want to give away who the reviewer or the cache owner is so I can't give you the GC numbers.
There are three caches involved. Two are fairly close together, separated by a half mile or more. The other is miles away.
StaticTank
#13
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:34 PM
Andronicus, on Aug 17 2010, 02:31 PM, said:
If that is indeed the whole story, I would e-mail contact@Groundspeak.com to appeal the decision.
I already did, I said that earlier. I will let you know what they say. I just like to post it here to see what the general caching population thinks.
StaticTank
#14
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:35 PM
Andronicus, on Aug 17 2010, 05:31 PM, said:
If that is indeed the whole story, I would e-mail contact@Groundspeak.com to appeal the decision.
^
|
|
Yup
#15
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:39 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 05:09 PM, said:
Why does there have to be more to the story?
Um, because it makes no sense?
It sounds like you're getting this story from someone else. To quote Dr. Gregory House, "People lie". While I think you're telling us all you were told, I don't think you were told the whole story.
#16
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:44 PM
Prime Suspect, on Aug 17 2010, 02:39 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 05:09 PM, said:
Why does there have to be more to the story?
Um, because it makes no sense?
It sounds like you're getting this story from someone else. To quote Dr. Gregory House, "People lie". While I think you're telling us all you were told, I don't think you were told the whole story.
The story does come from someone else, but I saw the emails. I am not lying. If I wanted to tell you a story and make you believe me and take my side I could exaggerate the story and say anything. When asking someones opinion about something I find it useless to lie because they would then not be giving me the opinion on the truth.
#17
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:49 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 03:44 PM, said:
Prime Suspect, on Aug 17 2010, 02:39 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 05:09 PM, said:
Why does there have to be more to the story?
Um, because it makes no sense?
It sounds like you're getting this story from someone else. To quote Dr. Gregory House, "People lie". While I think you're telling us all you were told, I don't think you were told the whole story.
The story does come from someone else, but I saw the emails. I am not lying. If I wanted to tell you a story and make you believe me and take my side I could exaggerate the story and say anything. When asking someones opinion about something I find it useless to lie because they would then not be giving me the opinion on the truth.
You have to be run through the wringer anyway, sorry, unwritten forum rules. Anything which doesn't past the 'does it smell funny, like a peanut butter and raw chicken sandwich' test is automatically subject to people doubting the veracity of your post. Best to don the flame-proof suit or adopt an 'I don't care what you say' attitude.'
Best of luck with it all.
This post has been edited by DragonsWest: 17 August 2010 - 02:49 PM
#18
Posted 17 August 2010 - 02:52 PM
Prime Suspect, on Aug 17 2010, 06:39 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 05:09 PM, said:
Why does there have to be more to the story?
Um, because it makes no sense?
Exactly. You opted not to tell us who the cache owner was, what the GC number of the archived cache is or who the reviewer in question is. By definition, those details could provide "the rest of the story". Since you are giving the account in the third person, your version of the "facts" would seem to be dependent upon what the mystery cache owner told you, as opposed to what really happened. Assuming that there is any accuracy to your claims, I would guess that the reviewer provided several reasons for the denial, and the "FTF" silliness was just one concern, and likely the most minor concern given.
#19
Posted 17 August 2010 - 03:24 PM
Quote
StaticTank-
“There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy.”
He [the reviewer] has some stubborn policies that don't seem to align with what other reviewers do.
I don't want to give away who the reviewer or the cache owner is……
I just like to post it here to see what the general caching population thinks.
“There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy.”
He [the reviewer] has some stubborn policies that don't seem to align with what other reviewers do.
I don't want to give away who the reviewer or the cache owner is……
I just like to post it here to see what the general caching population thinks.
So you want the geocaching community to give an opinion on a cache apparently (or not) denied by an experienced reviewer you admit to having issues with and you're unwilling to give any more "facts" or innuendoes.
What I think is: if it walks like a troll and smells like a troll........
This post has been edited by rjb43nh: 17 August 2010 - 03:25 PM
Posted 17 August 2010 - 03:32 PM
#21
Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:17 PM
Clan Riffster, on Aug 17 2010, 02:52 PM, said:
Prime Suspect, on Aug 17 2010, 06:39 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 05:09 PM, said:
Why does there have to be more to the story?
Um, because it makes no sense?
Exactly. You opted not to tell us who the cache owner was, what the GC number of the archived cache is or who the reviewer in question is. By definition, those details could provide "the rest of the story". Since you are giving the account in the third person, your version of the "facts" would seem to be dependent upon what the mystery cache owner told you, as opposed to what really happened. Assuming that there is any accuracy to your claims, I would guess that the reviewer provided several reasons for the denial, and the "FTF" silliness was just one concern, and likely the most minor concern given.
That information is irrelevant. No other reasons were given, the cache was two years old and the reviewer told him he shouldn't have made it a new cache should have just reactivated the old one. I see no reason after two years why one can't put a new cache in place of an old one. Both the cacher and reviewer have plenty of experience and are very capable in their abilities. If I get permission from the cache owner I will post his name and the actual conversation between him and the reviewer.
I apologize there were only two caches involved not three.
StaticTank
#22
Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:23 PM
This should be handled through the appeals process. The cache owner should bring it back here to discuss if that fails to answer his questions.
#24
Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:44 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 03:09 PM, said:
Harry Dolphin, on Aug 17 2010, 02:04 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 01:58 PM, said:
That is really all there is to the story. The owner went to replace his caches that had gone missing. He wanted them to be in the same spot but something a little different. He named them similar and it was denied because "it would cause a FTF frenzy". Nothing more to the story.
StaticTank
StaticTank
I want to hear the rest of the story. I don't believe that story for a moment.
Why does there have to be more to the story? That is it. If I am going to bother to ask what others think of a situation, I am going to give all of the details. That is it...if I have more to give I will give it when I have it. The situation has been appealed and I will let you know the answer, when I get it.
If you have questions about the story please feel free to ask. I will give you the answer.
StaticTank
Have you considered that there might be more to the story that you are not aware of, like info the Reviewer has that you do not? End of story.
#25
Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:46 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 03:34 PM, said:
Andronicus, on Aug 17 2010, 02:31 PM, said:
If that is indeed the whole story, I would e-mail contact@Groundspeak.com to appeal the decision.
I already did, I said that earlier. I will let you know what they say. I just like to post it here to see what the general caching population thinks.
StaticTank
I think you have your answer...the general Caching population(as sampled here) thinks...
There must be more to the story.
#26
Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:50 PM
luketrocity, on Aug 17 2010, 04:26 PM, said:
At least post the emails
As he wasn't a party to the content I don't think it is his place to post them.
#27
Posted 17 August 2010 - 05:45 PM
There is never any controversy in the Sioux Falls area, is there, StaticTank!! 
I can probably make a pretty good guess at who is involved in this, based on my experience with caching your fine town, and I can almost guarantee that there is more to the story, if my guess is right.
Nevertheless, what the
is a "FTF frenzy", and why would the reviewer care? That is the heart of the issue, I think. Its been a while since I've been over that way... have you guys taken to using violent means to get FTF, or something? You've always been very competitive, but I've never heard of anybody getting hurt.
I can probably make a pretty good guess at who is involved in this, based on my experience with caching your fine town, and I can almost guarantee that there is more to the story, if my guess is right.Nevertheless, what the
is a "FTF frenzy", and why would the reviewer care? That is the heart of the issue, I think. Its been a while since I've been over that way... have you guys taken to using violent means to get FTF, or something? You've always been very competitive, but I've never heard of anybody getting hurt.
#28
Posted 17 August 2010 - 06:44 PM
I don't understand why the reviewer or anyone else would care if there was an "FTF Frenzy", whatever that is.
#29
Posted 17 August 2010 - 06:48 PM
rjb43nh, on Aug 17 2010, 04:24 PM, said:
Quote
StaticTank-
“There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy.”
He [the reviewer] has some stubborn policies that don't seem to align with what other reviewers do.
I don't want to give away who the reviewer or the cache owner is……
I just like to post it here to see what the general caching population thinks.
“There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy.”
He [the reviewer] has some stubborn policies that don't seem to align with what other reviewers do.
I don't want to give away who the reviewer or the cache owner is……
I just like to post it here to see what the general caching population thinks.
So you want the geocaching community to give an opinion on a cache apparently (or not) denied by an experienced reviewer you admit to having issues with and you're unwilling to give any more "facts" or innuendoes.
What I think is: if it walks like a troll and smells like a troll........
I REALLY wish people would stop calling troll. It's rude and in most cases unfounded.
Just because you don't agree with someones post does not make them a troll.
#30
Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:25 PM
i may be a troll but that is the dumbest op i have seen. we gotta do a little better next time.
#31
Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:28 PM
sekinhsa, on Aug 17 2010, 10:25 PM, said:
i may be a troll but that is the dumbest op i have seen. we gotta do a little better next time.
You have 4 posts, and joined a week ago. Static Tank joined 4 years ago. Please don't go calling posts or posters dumb until you have a little more experience. That was rude of you.
This post has been edited by knowschad: 17 August 2010 - 07:32 PM
#32
Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:31 PM
knowschad, on Aug 17 2010, 07:28 PM, said:
sekinhsa, on Aug 17 2010, 10:25 PM, said:
i may be a troll but that is the dumbest op i have seen. we gotta do a little better next time.
Read it backwards.
:popcorn:
#33
- and J.C. the puppymonster
-
- Group: Site Wide Moderators
- Posts: 7443
- Joined: 08-February 01
Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:38 PM
Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.
#34
Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:39 PM
mtn-man, on Aug 17 2010, 10:38 PM, said:
Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.
#35
Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:47 PM
knowschad, on Aug 17 2010, 08:39 PM, said:
mtn-man, on Aug 17 2010, 10:38 PM, said:
Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.
nmad!
I may have to close my thread! There is nothing to miss.
#36
Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:47 PM
Here is the quote from the reviewer note on the cache:
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"
and the other cache:
IowaAdmin: "Same story as your other cache -- no reason for this to be a new cache because it's not a new location."
I really don't care if any of you believe that there is more to this. That is it. My friend is not hiding anything. There is no more to it. I know the location, I know the hider he is a very close friend and I telling you there is no more to this...this is the only message that has been exchanged between the reviewer and the cacher.
@knowschad, this is not one of the people you are probably thinking of.
StaticTank
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"
and the other cache:
IowaAdmin: "Same story as your other cache -- no reason for this to be a new cache because it's not a new location."
I really don't care if any of you believe that there is more to this. That is it. My friend is not hiding anything. There is no more to it. I know the location, I know the hider he is a very close friend and I telling you there is no more to this...this is the only message that has been exchanged between the reviewer and the cacher.
@knowschad, this is not one of the people you are probably thinking of.
StaticTank
#37
Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:48 PM
mtn-man, on Aug 17 2010, 07:38 PM, said:
Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.
The responses to my discussion here will give me pause to ever bring up another topic in the future...I am really disappointed in all of you.
#38
Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:58 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 08:47 PM, said:
Here is the quote from the reviewer note on the cache:
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"
and the other cache:
IowaAdmin: "Same story as your other cache -- no reason for this to be a new cache because it's not a new location."
I really don't care if any of you believe that there is more to this. That is it. My friend is not hiding anything. There is no more to it. I know the location, I know the hider he is a very close friend and I telling you there is no more to this...this is the only message that has been exchanged between the reviewer and the cacher.
@knowschad, this is not one of the people you are probably thinking of.
StaticTank
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"
and the other cache:
IowaAdmin: "Same story as your other cache -- no reason for this to be a new cache because it's not a new location."
I really don't care if any of you believe that there is more to this. That is it. My friend is not hiding anything. There is no more to it. I know the location, I know the hider he is a very close friend and I telling you there is no more to this...this is the only message that has been exchanged between the reviewer and the cacher.
@knowschad, this is not one of the people you are probably thinking of.
StaticTank
Ummm what the cache reviewer said there has little to do with a "FTF frenzy"
Thanks for finally posting the rest of the story.
This post has been edited by brslk: 17 August 2010 - 08:00 PM
#39
Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:59 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 08:48 PM, said:
mtn-man, on Aug 17 2010, 07:38 PM, said:
Do not feed the troll. Ignore and move on.
The responses to my discussion here will give me pause to ever bring up another topic in the future...I am really disappointed in all of you.
That wasn't aimed at you, but at another poster in the thread, who is a known problem.
It sounds to me that the reviewer has a point, though. Same basic cache, same location, same owner. What's the point of listing it as a new cache with a new GC #? (Except, uhm, maybe to create a FTF frenzy?
)
#40
Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:01 PM
brslk, on Aug 17 2010, 07:58 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 08:47 PM, said:
Here is the quote from the reviewer note on the cache:
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"
and the other cache:
IowaAdmin: "Same story as your other cache -- no reason for this to be a new cache because it's not a new location."
I really don't care if any of you believe that there is more to this. That is it. My friend is not hiding anything. There is no more to it. I know the location, I know the hider he is a very close friend and I telling you there is no more to this...this is the only message that has been exchanged between the reviewer and the cacher.
@knowschad, this is not one of the people you are probably thinking of.
StaticTank
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"
and the other cache:
IowaAdmin: "Same story as your other cache -- no reason for this to be a new cache because it's not a new location."
I really don't care if any of you believe that there is more to this. That is it. My friend is not hiding anything. There is no more to it. I know the location, I know the hider he is a very close friend and I telling you there is no more to this...this is the only message that has been exchanged between the reviewer and the cacher.
@knowschad, this is not one of the people you are probably thinking of.
StaticTank
Ummm what the cache reviewer said there has little to do with a "cache frenzy"
Thanks for finally posting the rest of the story.
Agreed. Sounds like the reviewer was doing their job by trying to keep the original caches active.
#41
Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:01 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 11:47 PM, said:
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"
Interesting. In your opening post, you stated the redux version was not allowed, yet the language I'm seeing here looks more like a suggestion. I may be reading too much into semantics, but there is a difference between "You Should" and "You Must". If the Reviewer is making a suggestion regarding what they think should be done in this type of situation, I agree with them. The same container, at the same coords really doesn't warrant a new GC number, does it? Unless there is something really remarkable about the location, why would your friend want to bring folks back there? Just another smiley for their collection?
On the other hand, if the Reviewer has made this a directive, refusing to publish the cache based solely on that reason, and your friend really wants the caches to have new GC numbers, he should take it up the chain of command, sending a polite e-mail, including both the old and new GC numbers to Groundspeak.
#42
Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:08 PM
I don't see what the issue is here. Why doesn't the owner just reactivate the old ones and get on with it? He/she can change the cache pages and the titles of the caches if it's that important.
#43
Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:10 PM
Clan Riffster, on Aug 17 2010, 08:01 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 11:47 PM, said:
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"
Interesting. In your opening post, you stated the redux version was not allowed, yet the language I'm seeing here looks more like a suggestion. I may be reading too much into semantics, but there is a difference between "You Should" and "You Must". If the Reviewer is making a suggestion regarding what they think should be done in this type of situation, I agree with them. The same container, at the same coords really doesn't warrant a new GC number, does it? Unless there is something really remarkable about the location, why would your friend want to bring folks back there? Just another smiley for their collection?
On the other hand, if the Reviewer has made this a directive, refusing to publish the cache based solely on that reason, and your friend really wants the caches to have new GC numbers, he should take it up the chain of command, sending a polite e-mail, including both the old and new GC numbers to Groundspeak.
Well since the reviewer wouldn't publish the new cache it really wasn't a suggestion. I don't believe that Groundspeak wants reviewers to be FTF police. If a cache owner wants to replace a new cache at the same location I don't believe there is a good reason to not do it. I have done it many, many times. Hiding a different cache at the same coordinates. What is the problem with recycling an area. I found a cache today that was in the same coordinates as a recently archived cache and the rating was 3.5 stars different...
After having found all of the caches in my area, I really appreciate when caches recycle an area. I hate spending money and my time every weekend driving across country to find new caches. I am thankful that my reviewer has no problem with this. I plan on doing it with four of my caches next week.
StaticTank
#44
Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:41 PM
While i'd personally prefer old caches be left intact and not replaced with new GC numbers (i like the old ones), i've never heard of a reviewer being against this practice. It happens all the time here.
There is a "permanence" guideline he could theoretically cite, but i think "3 months" is the length usually used. 2 years is plenty of time to re-list a new cache there if the owner wants.
There is a "permanence" guideline he could theoretically cite, but i think "3 months" is the length usually used. 2 years is plenty of time to re-list a new cache there if the owner wants.
#45
Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:50 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 09:10 PM, said:
<snip>
After having found all of the caches in my area, I really appreciate when caches recycle an area. I hate spending money and my time every weekend driving across country to find new caches.
StaticTank
After having found all of the caches in my area, I really appreciate when caches recycle an area. I hate spending money and my time every weekend driving across country to find new caches.
StaticTank
Haven't met StarBrand, have you? A lot of cachers spend time and money driving around to find caches. Recycling the same old cache with a new GC # just to get a smiley sounds really boring to me.
This post has been edited by jholly: 17 August 2010 - 08:52 PM
#46
Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:52 PM
The original post said:
There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy.
The Reviewer said:
there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy
The original post was totally misleading. Some of the words are the same in both, but they do not say the same thing.
There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy.
The Reviewer said:
there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy
The original post was totally misleading. Some of the words are the same in both, but they do not say the same thing.
#47
Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:53 PM
jholly, on Aug 17 2010, 09:50 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 09:10 PM, said:
<snip>
After having found all of the caches in my area, I really appreciate when caches recycle an area. I hate spending money and my time every weekend driving across country to find new caches.
StaticTank
After having found all of the caches in my area, I really appreciate when caches recycle an area. I hate spending money and my time every weekend driving across country to find new caches.
StaticTank
A lot of cachers spend time and money driving around to find caches. Recycling the same old cache with a new GC # just to get a smiley sounds really boring and really a waste of time to me.
+6591
#48
Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:58 PM
jholly, on Aug 17 2010, 09:50 PM, said:
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 09:10 PM, said:
<snip>
After having found all of the caches in my area, I really appreciate when caches recycle an area. I hate spending money and my time every weekend driving across country to find new caches.
StaticTank
After having found all of the caches in my area, I really appreciate when caches recycle an area. I hate spending money and my time every weekend driving across country to find new caches.
StaticTank
Haven't met StarBrand, have you? A lot of cachers spend time and money driving around to find caches. Recycling the same old cache with a new GC # just to get a smiley sounds really boring to me.
+1
Finding new places to go geocaching is my favourite part of the game.
#49
Posted 17 August 2010 - 09:12 PM
StaticTank, on Aug 17 2010, 08:47 PM, said:
Here is the quote from the reviewer note on the cache:
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"
and the other cache:
IowaAdmin: "Same story as your other cache -- no reason for this to be a new cache because it's not a new location."
I really don't care if any of you believe that there is more to this. That is it. My friend is not hiding anything. There is no more to it. I know the location, I know the hider he is a very close friend and I telling you there is no more to this...this is the only message that has been exchanged between the reviewer and the cacher.
@knowschad, this is not one of the people you are probably thinking of.
StaticTank
IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy"
and the other cache:
IowaAdmin: "Same story as your other cache -- no reason for this to be a new cache because it's not a new location."
I really don't care if any of you believe that there is more to this. That is it. My friend is not hiding anything. There is no more to it. I know the location, I know the hider he is a very close friend and I telling you there is no more to this...this is the only message that has been exchanged between the reviewer and the cacher.
@knowschad, this is not one of the people you are probably thinking of.
StaticTank
Well, there we have it...the rest of the story. If you read english correctly, then you will be able to see the complete difference between what you said in your OP as the reason for denial, and what the Reviewer said in their note. They are completely different statements.
It appears that the reviewer is concerned that the ONLY reason for the new listing is to creat a False FTF hunt. If the CO has other reasons for listing old Caches as new listings, then they only need to let the reviewer know what the other reasons are. Take a liik at my two Caches, they are recycled Caches in Recycled locations, but there is another reason besides JUST a FTF race.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...cb-d3ba1e55b28a
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...63-6ffd3d3bdeb9
#50
Posted 17 August 2010 - 09:12 PM
Ummm. I was just thinking (I know, dangerous thing for me) that if this is an issue for the actual cache owner, why isn't THAT cacher in here asking about it? If it isn't, why is ANYONE in here asking about it? Seems to me this is between 2 parties not even involved in this discussion.
As for the reviewers notes, I still think there is a bit more to this story. I've got the feeling that the reviewer sent an email or posted a reviewers note simply asking why not re-activate the old caches and is holding off on approving or archiving the new ones until some kind of answer is received. His note sound more like a "Why?" rather than a "No!" to me.
As for the reviewers notes, I still think there is a bit more to this story. I've got the feeling that the reviewer sent an email or posted a reviewers note simply asking why not re-activate the old caches and is holding off on approving or archiving the new ones until some kind of answer is received. His note sound more like a "Why?" rather than a "No!" to me.
