The Wisconsin Geocaching Association

  Login or Register

Website Navigation

62.png Home

49.png Information Center
26.png WGA Newsletters
24.png Reviewer's Words
53.png Presentation Resources
39.png Geocaching Files
27.png Bookmarks
56.png Location Rules and Regs
49.png BOD Info Center

17.png Forums
16.png New Posts
20.png Unanswered Posts

calendar_day.png Upcoming Events
mapicon.png Map
29.png Calendar
11.png Submit Event

mapicon.png WGA State Park CachesNew content !

shield_star.png Cache of the Month
mapicon.png Past Winners Map

LonelyCache.png Lonely Cache Game
mapicon.png Current Map
26.png Scoreboard
11.png Submit Report

rescueiconsm.png Cache Rescue
11.png Submit a Mission

icon_community.gif Members
27.png Your Account
47.png Private Messages
contact_blue.png WGA Member Map
Geocaching_LIVE_poweredby_16.png GC.COM Authorization

icon_members.gif News
tree-T.gif Topics
tree-T.gif Archives
tree-L.gif Submit News

image_cultured.png Photo Gallery
tree-T.gif Updates
tree-L.gif Popular

shield.png Fun Stuff
28.png Recent Logs
TB.gif Picnic to Picnic TB Race Standings
TB.gif WGA Hauler

49.png Board of Directors
 
Contact Us

 
Facebook

Wisconsin Geocaching Association

 
Follow Us

Twitter Button

 
Subscribe to Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
 
Geocaching.com Search
View Search Syntax
 
COTM
Winner -
August 2014 Northern Zone:
WSQ Gordon Cemetery

Winner -
August 2014 Northeast Zone:
Trout Haven

Winner -
August 2014 West Central Zone:
WISCONSIN DELORME CHALLENGE

Winner -
August 2014 South Central Zone:
Capitol Punishment

Winner -
August 2014 Southeast Zone:
Wisconsin Homestead - Emslie Farm

Winner -
August 2014 Series of the Month:
Classic Childrens Books


More Info >>>

 
 
Wisconsin Geocaching Association: Forums
 

 

View next topic
View previous topic
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
The Pirate Monkies
WGA Member



Joined: 2008-06-28
Posts: 100
Location: Kenosha, Wi.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:43 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I recently placed a number of WSQs in Racine, Kenosha, and Walworth counties... A great majority of the found logs have contained very favorable responses by those who have logged them... These finders are made up of some new and some very experienced S.E. Wisconsin/N.E. Illinois cachers... I try to make my caches interesting and/or to bring cachers to unique places that they may not have previously visited... While I'm not always successful in my attempts, the vast majority of finders, seasoned as well as novice, seem to enjoy my caches... However, there is one cacher, who is a volunteer reviewer and WGA board member that feels the need to referee my caches when logging his finds... This person has unnecessarily given away cache information that I chose not to disclose, (GC2ERGF), publicly derided my cache placement selections, (GC2F9TF) (GC2F9R2), and most recently inferred in his log that I am either ignorant or a jerk, (GC2F98M)...
I feel that this behavior is extremely inappropriate for a volunteer reviewer as well as an elected WGA board member, and if it continues, I'll drop my WGA membership and I will delete any and all defamatory logs by this person... Also, if I feel that I am being discriminated against in regards to any of my future placement reviews, I will be forced to notify Groundspeak... If anybody has a problem with any of my caches a PM is always an option... I'm not usually this brutal, so if anyone has any suggestions, I'm open to them...

_________________
Don't Waste Your Time Always Searching For Those Wasted Years... Face Up... Make A Stand... And Realize You're Living In The Golden Years... 
View user's profile Send private message
Mister Greenthumb
WGA Member



Joined: 2007-02-03
Posts: 2727

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:12 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I think that you're over reacting a little. I've hidden over 200 caches and also occasionally get a few similar logs. That's to be expected if you're going to hide caches. Except for the last log that you note the others and even that last one contain information that is intended to be useful to future cachers. That's one of the several reasons that there are for logging caches. I think you'll find that favorable logs will always far outweigh those you might view as being negative. If you want to hide caches sometimes you have to be a little thick skinned.
 
View user's profile Send private message
Mister Greenthumb
WGA Member



Joined: 2007-02-03
Posts: 2727

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:12 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I think that you're over reacting a little. I've hidden over 200 caches and also occasionally get a few similar logs. That's to be expected if you're going to hide caches. Except for the last log that you note the others and even that last one contain information that is intended to be useful to future cachers. That's one of the several reasons that there are for logging caches. I think you'll find that favorable logs will always far outweigh those you might view as being negative. If you want to hide caches sometimes you have to be a little thick skinned.
 
View user's profile Send private message
CodeJunkie
WGA Member



Joined: 2009-07-21
Posts: 8237
Location: Berlin, WI

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:16 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Ditto Greenthumb. I didn't see them as rude, but maybe that's just me. I also think it's unfair to single out a cacher that just happens to be a reviewer. I think that as a reviewer they're doing you a favor considering the number / variety of caches they approve.
 
View user's profile Send private message
sweetlife
WGA Board Member
WGA Board Member



Joined: 2005-01-17
Posts: 2551
Location: Mountain, WI

PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:44 am Reply with quote Back to top

I seem to disagree with the above posts if a container is other why give it away in the logs? and the comments about decrypting hints in the field, most that still do that would know exactly what this says ( abar arrqrq ) just like the reverse of stump, tree, etc.

If you see a log on one of your caches that you think has a spoiler in it, delete it and send the cacher a message to change his log. I have had some deleted because of it in the past.
 
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
-cheeto-
WGA Member



Joined: 2007-06-12
Posts: 4538
Location: Appleton, WI

PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:01 am Reply with quote Back to top

Being a cache owner, regardless of who the logger is I don't see reason enough to delete any of those logs. Perhaps the one about the "micro" would upset me as a cache owner and would be dealt with in an email to the logger.

Coordinates being criticized is extremely common.

If you're truly placing a cache near a headstone in a cemetery, being another cacher who may someday find the cache I would want to know that info so I can filter out that cemetery cache as I find it disrespectful to hunt near headstones. That's just my opinion though and not the opinion of all cachers and certainly not the opinion of the WGA Board of directors.

Have you ever met Deejay in real life?
 
View user's profile Send private message
gotta run
WGA Member



Joined: 2007-11-26
Posts: 3306

PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:15 am Reply with quote Back to top

If we start picking apart people's logs in a public forum there's going to be no end to this.

I realize that there may be a concern on the part of the OP because the logs in question are from a reviewer and a board member, but nothing in my experience would indicate that the review process is anything but objective, and I've had my disagreements with said reviewer as well.

Everybody can find fault with something that somebody else writes, even if it's just TFTC.

Well, with that said I'm sure someone can find something I've written in the forums over the past 4 years that contradicts what I've just written here... :roll:
 
View user's profile Send private message
Team Black-Cat
WGA Webmaster
WGA Webmaster



Joined: 2007-09-13
Posts: 6090
Location: Somewhere in Central WI

PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:25 am Reply with quote Back to top

The Pirate Monkies wrote:
...I'm not usually this brutal, so if anyone has any suggestions, I'm open to them...


A PM is always an option.
 
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
The Pirate Monkies
WGA Member



Joined: 2008-06-28
Posts: 100
Location: Kenosha, Wi.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:53 am Reply with quote Back to top

It has not been my intention to denigrate WGA board members or volunteer reviewers, as at times theirs can be an unpleasant task... But, IMHO, those in office must hold themselves to a standard befitting those offices... My contention is that, while caching, it may be appropriate for those persons to leave the striped referee shirts at home and just enjoy the hunt... Geocaching was designed to be challenging to various degrees, hence the D/T rating, and in most cases caches are not intended to be "gimmes"... If in the opinion of any cacher, no matter if they're a reviewer, board member, or whatever, if a cache has SERIOUS issues there are avenues other than posting a spoiler or a log that derides the placement... A reviewer is just that, a person that reviews potential caches to ensure that they meet the established guidelines, not someone that points out every perceived flaw that's found in a cache... What may be perceived as a flaw to some can be something fun and challenging for others... i.e Decrypting twisted hints, some of us like doing that, (o.k. so I'm twisted, does that make me a bad person?)...

In the case of GC2ERGF, the reason that the size is listed as not chosen is that in my belief, listing the size may give away too much info... Also it is somewhere between a small and a micro, in this case, size is in the eye of the beholder... Besides, it's been said that size doesn't matter (sorry, I couldn't resist)...

I may have over reacted during my rant as I was overtired and hacked off about other things as well... I'm not the habitual log deleter as some seem to surmise... I have only deleted one found log, (other than my own), and that was due to a cacher blatantly and willfully disregarding night cemetery caching rules at one of my WSQs (GC2F0YQ) in a quest for an FTF...

I try to remember that "Discretion is the Better Part of Valor" and hope that we all remember that, so that we can keep geocaching a fun pastime for all of us...

_________________
Don't Waste Your Time Always Searching For Those Wasted Years... Face Up... Make A Stand... And Realize You're Living In The Golden Years...

Last edited by The Pirate Monkies on Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:02 pm; edited 2 times in total 
View user's profile Send private message
Lostby7
WGA Member



Joined: 2005-06-07
Posts: 3190
Location: Lake country area, WI

PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:08 am Reply with quote Back to top

Without exception (ok maybe outing the size was a bit out of bounds) I think the finders logs were helpful and reasonable. Just because he volunteers his time in a few high visibility positions should in no way negate his right to express his opinion. My advise is to accept the criticism given by an experienced geocacher and move on.

Also just because the majority of logs are favorable, does not mean the cache is good or that there are not problems with it...it often means folks take the path of least resistance when logging. In other words they do not take the time to write a log honestly expressing their opinion of the find. I usually provide a very short log (usually the shorter my logs the less I liked a cache...unless I'm on a numbers run then most logs are kept brief) rather than directly criticize a cache. I have left a single "." on a couple of caches that were complete crap. That said there are those among us who tell it like it is and we are not used to hearing that...maybe we should listen more and take the opinions of others in stride.

Twice I posted a note this week about caches I personally did not approve of (one was in a residential area in view of 6 houses which I refuse to do and the other was a WSQ which I felt was too exposed to the home next door). Those were my opinions and other folks either had no problems with these caches or chose not to mention any discomfort in seeking them, either way as a cache owner I would want the good input as well as the bad so that I can do better next time or right a cache that is perhaps not so great.
 
View user's profile Send private message
JimandLinda
WGA Member



Joined: 2008-08-14
Posts: 5404
Location: Rosendale WI

PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:42 am Reply with quote Back to top

I guess I disagree with a few.

Review when in review mode...cache while in cache mode. We ALL like to review a cache after we've found it. But a cache issue should be pm'd by a reviewer/cacher to owner. The reviewers do a thankless job, at times, but it needs to stay in the volunteer workplace, not in the general caching world.

I must agree on LB7's comment, "The longer the log, the more I liked it!"

Interesting and touchy subject!
 
View user's profile Send private message
The Pirate Monkies
WGA Member



Joined: 2008-06-28
Posts: 100
Location: Kenosha, Wi.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:49 am Reply with quote Back to top

-cheeto- wrote:
Being a cache owner, regardless of who the logger is I don't see reason enough to delete any of those logs. Perhaps the one about the "micro" would upset me as a cache owner and would be dealt with in an email to the logger.

Coordinates being criticized is extremely common.

If you're truly placing a cache near a headstone in a cemetery, being another cacher who may someday find the cache I would want to know that info so I can filter out that cemetery cache as I find it disrespectful to hunt near headstones. That's just my opinion though and not the opinion of all cachers and certainly not the opinion of the WGA Board of directors.

Have you ever met Deejay in real life?


I, like yourself, try to be as respectful of WSQs, as possible, especially when placing a cache as I would hate to have a cacher get into trouble over one of my placements... We use the term "not on or near any markers" when placing WSQs, the definition of "on" is obvious but "near" is open to interpretation, I still feel that if a cacher has an issue with the "nearness" (is that a word?) of a cache to a gravesite, it should be addressed in a PM or in an open forum such as this, not as a derogatory log... Maybe this could be a topic for discussion, many factors could come into play when discussing the "nearness" of a cache to a burial marker, all suggestions would undoubtedly be beneficial...

I have only deleted one log in regards to one of my caches, GC2F0YQ, which I believe was the appropriate, but not enjoyable thing to do...

But I digress, in answer to your closing question, yes... I have met Dave and yes... I voted for him...

_________________
Don't Waste Your Time Always Searching For Those Wasted Years... Face Up... Make A Stand... And Realize You're Living In The Golden Years... 
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:       
Post new topic   Reply to topic

View next topic
View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2008 phpBB Group
:: Theme & Graphics by Daz :: Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com ::
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
 
Forums ©
 
Legal Notice | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Parental Consent Form | contact | Comments ]

All content © 2013 Wisconsin Geocaching Association, except comments and forum entries which are property of their posters.

The Groundspeak Geocaching Logo is a registered trademark of Groundspeak, Inc. Used with permission.
 


Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the WGA Terms of Use


Distributed by Raven PHP Scripts
New code written and maintained by the RavenNuke™ TEAM


(Original PHP-Nuke Code Copyright © 2004 by Francisco Burzi)
Page Generation: 0.12 Seconds

:: fisubice phpbb2 style by Daz :: PHP-Nuke theme by www.nukemods.com ::
:: fisubice Theme Recoded To 100% W3C CSS & HTML 4.01 Transitional & XHTML 1.0 Transitional Compliance by RavenNuke™ TEAM ::

:: W3C CSS Compliance Validation :: W3C HTML 4.01 Transitional Compliance Validation :: W3C XHTML 1.0 Transitional Compliance Validation ::