eCache

What Is Unreasonable

I will look into your tickets, all reasonable queries will be answered.

I have heard nothing regarding these trouble tickets. Based on the above post by Hydee of 26 August, it is assumed that Groundspeak considers these trouble tickets unreasonable. Dear reader, I share the following so you will know what kinds of things Groundspeak has determined to be unreasonable.

#125724 (the added part after Nate addressed the initial item)
It is unreasonable to think that NJ Admin will approve caches. I submitted a cache on 18 August. It has yet to be approved. B4 you suggest that I need to look at the page for reviewer notes, my spam filter, etc. for notes from NJ Admin, I assure you there has been no communication. Yeah, we all know he went on vacation for a few days. Allow me to say that 14 NJ caches were approved after mine was submitted and b4 DC was seen eight days later. Three of those approved caches were hidden by me, but submitted by someone else. They were submitted on 23 August. Groundspeak dismissed this concern as unreasonable.

#124031
I requested that someone check on the Watch List notification. Again, spam filters, etc. were checked. I use the Watch List to generate local stats. I do not scrape data as many here do. I do try to follow what we are asked to do. I found several instances on one day when Watch List notifications were not running. I have learned that it is unreasonable to expect that the site will look into such a matter.

#123180
After submitting a few SBA notes on caches that I had found previously but now knew were not there (GCGJZG, GCGDZF, and GCGYQF) I waited for the reviewer to take action. Nothing happened. I checked several days later to see if he had logged in recently. He had.

I noticed a few other things when I checked the player profile page of the reviewer. First, there was an image of a server’s log. Several IP addresses were highlighted. It was not difficult to determine whose IP addresses they were. Next, I realized that my IP address had just been collected. This reviewer has an image on his player profile which sends a visitor’s IP address to a publicly available page on a different system. I monitor that page. I have been able to discern personally identifiable information about many Groundspeak users from investigating the IP addresses. This seems to violate 4.(k) of GC.com’s TOU. But, it was unreasonable for me to be concerned about this issue.

#118000
I wrote to inquire about why a cache had been approved with a blank cache description. I had had that same cache rejected earlier as being “inappropriate” for having a blank cache description. I asked why the one was approved and mine wasn’t. Instead of answering that question, the approved cache was “unapproved” and a reviewer shared that I had complained about the cache. Forget that most of what the reviewer had said was wrong, I asked why the Groundspeak e-mail address was used for the reviewer to tell another customer about me. Yet, this was an unreasonable query.

#109701
This was the precursor to #118000. I wrote to ask that someone other than the reviewer (who was not the local reviewer) who rejected this cache take a look at it. I asked if a blank cache description was “inappropriate”. Also, there was a second cache that the reviewer indicated he was reviewing. He did not approve it. He did not disapprove it. It sat there in limbo for quite a while b4 I made it inactive. Apparently, it was unreasonable to expect a submitted cache to be reviewed.

#104065
About YJTBs. I asked why I was told a decision would be made by the end of May, but when I wrote on 9 June for a follow-up to my request, no one responded. Some groups received many of these, others none. In the end, this one doesn’t matter, so perhaps it was indeed unreasonable to ask why the local group was dismissed.

#104147
The cache that was denied in #109701, but approved when submitted by someone else in #118000, was a bonus cache to an involved cache I had planned. I had asked for opinions and suggestions to do something with the cache from both the reviewer and GC.com. Neither responded. I can understand that they may not be interested in helping with what I had requested (although I truly think it would have been a good idea), but to not even respond? To plan ahead and seek guidance from the listing site is unreasonable.

#103916
I asked about what the preferred url is to use when linking to a cache page. I explained that for the stats area I was working on that I wanted users to be able to link to the page. I feared that the format I was using might be part of the old code and be done away with. Interestingly enough, this too was deemed unreasonable.

#99834
I had inquired how to move my membership to another account so it would be separate from the account which lists the caches I had submitted. This was in the process of being done. All of a sudden the process stopped. I asked why. That was unreasonable.

As some know, there are a few other things that are not tied up in the above trouble tickets that Groundspeak has deemed unreasonable (someone had reportedly ejaculated into a cache, a bridge with a cache was fenced off, I had a TB in my possession that needed to get to a reviewer’s cache which had been disabled for eight+ months, does an event cache have to have a posted date and coords or could they be delivered via a puzzle, etc.). Many of those things pretty much revolve around #109701 and up. The silence on those pretty much tell me that they too are unreasonable. Direct e-mail to Groundspeak employees is ignored. Approvers@ is ignored. A letter sent via USPS was ignored. I have asked that if the trouble tickets are unreasonable to kindly do me the favor of informing me of that with an e-mail, not silence. That plea has been ignored.

Also blogged on this date . . .

• Dot . . . Dot . . . Dot . . . - 2008
• John Edwards On Education - 2007
• What should we do to improve education in America? - 2007
• A Good Laugh - 2007
• Leaders? - 2007
• Vegetarian - 2006

Tags: Geocaching, GPS Games