CacheDrone

Not recommended. Doing so would fall under the maintenance of a cache listing, which logs are a part of that aspect. Using the "announcement" log type by any host would be likely viewed as attempting to circumvent the guidelines they agreed to follow. Have a search in the Canada Forums for "Plasma Boy" if you are so inclined as an example of how a cache log with an agenda is also not permitted under the Terms of Use. CD

I'd be willing to do it for special occasion, infrequently. Just like exceptions to the guidelines, if the justification for the request made sense and wasn't being abused then I would do it on a one-off basis. CD

No one, and I mean NO ONE, jumps the line because they know a reviewer. Some of my friends have been known to text me to give me some update about something or have a question about a guideline, but often I still reply with "Can you email me at my reviewer account?". But I think it would be accurate to say that they ALL know that they are friends with BQ and that CD does not have a cell phone. Maybe you guys can petition Groundspeak to provide us all with iPhones As a Volunteer, I don't care for being Voluntold when to do it. Only one cacher can reach me at work LOL. CD Strange since CD never placed any physical caches, only hosted two events. Please provide us with your new address. I'm not stalking CD or anything, it's just that I got an archival notice for the cache at his house. Strange since CD has never placed any physical caches... {snicker}... edit - post didn't stick last try, inconsistent site response from server.

there was nothing to learn, my reply was directed strictly to thebruce perhaps there is something to learn, now we can't even be fumy in this forums, and the guidelines are interpreted based on who you are, some get a slap on the wrist and the rest get banned it is quite disheartening to see how things can get taken out of context and misinterpreted My point was more to point out that such comments are not in line with the terms of use for the forums, whether directed at me or other people in the forums. But this recent post seemed to warrant a reminder that the stove is still hot. Be as funny as you like as long as it remains within the guidelines of forum use set out by Groundspeak.

Well put. And now we are all on the same page.

Have you not learned from your recent one week forum ban?

Nope, that isn't right. CD

As reiterated by dfx I believe, that implies the person can hold the region indefinitely as long as they keep responding to the most recent reviewer request in a 'timely manner' (one month) simply saying "yep, I'm going to publish it there sometime soon". Further, how long until the reviewer checks again? A month after they say they'll use the spot? So it could be two months between any reviewer check up? I'd assume, I'd hope, the reviewer would start making a judgement call at some point, potentially calling shenanigans, since their goal is the publishing of active caches (or existence? demonstrated by the offer to unarchive gg's old, rather than publish gg's new, cache). This is not at that point. But there's a quick way to possibly find out - pass on gg's offer to the unknown cacher. They might respond and work something out. Or not. But at least the opportunity was provided. I still don't see how that's a problem. I gave the unknown cacher one month to reply to me. They did. That's where it ends. There isn't a reason for me to keep nagging the unknown cacher. CD

1) No it is not safe to assume that. The unknown cacher knows that someone else has shown interest in the general area but the unknown cacher has the spot secured. 2) Yes the unknown cacher not been told that because they were not told who else was looking. 3) No idea, but it has no bearing on the process. 4) Not sure why you think that. CD

This quoted post answered all of the relevant factors. There is a "reviewer note" created on every listing when it is created and any time the coordinates are changed. The date of that log cannot be changed (or reviewers see the original) so it is fair to say that we KNOW when someone is gaming the system. For example, let's say some random cacher... I dunno... The Blue Quasar, made up 100 dummy listings and used his house as the coordinates for each of them. He could NOT bump someone out of a spot simply by changing the coordinates of one of those 2 year old GC CODES. If you want to reserve a spot because you are in the process of constructing a puzzle, physical or logical or both, then the best solution is to ENABLE the cache for review and ask if the location is available. This should only be done if you are actively working towards publication. As reviewers we do have a table that tells us how to approach these situations and I will use that if people appear to be acting in a way that is contrary to cache publication. I would rather trust that Ontario geocachers are fair and courteous. When situations like this, or kinda like this, arise I always tell the person already reserving the spot that someone else is looking to place a cache in the nearby area but cannot because this cache has the area reserved. Then I ask if they are still actively working towards publication or are willing to release the area for the new cache to be published. I do not need to give any more detail than that. All listings are treated equally since the subjective quality has no bearing on publication. CD

I have not wanted to make any suggestions since I think it would be best to see a variety of ideas based on the host's wishes. But there are many variations that would work. Decide for yourself what you would want to do if you were going out caching for a period of time, and then include others by hosting it as event. The options are virtually endless. CD

No one, and I mean NO ONE, jumps the line because they know a reviewer. Some of my friends have been known to text me to give me some update about something or have a question about a guideline, but often I still reply with "Can you email me at my reviewer account?". But I think it would be accurate to say that they ALL know that they are friends with BQ and that CD does not have a cell phone. Maybe you guys can petition Groundspeak to provide us all with iPhones As a Volunteer, I don't care for being Voluntold when to do it. Only one cacher can reach me at work LOL. CD

For what it's worth, as reviewers we must take reports from land owners seriously and act on them immediately. Our policy is, as has always been, to archive immediately and if the situation can be resolved then we unarchive the listing. The "Bruce Trail Conservancy" is in some respects a land owner because they do own property and pay taxes on said property. On the other hand, they often instead secure permission for public use for privately owned land that remains owned by individuals and other groups. When the BTC is the actual property owner then as reviewers we would automatically archive the listing and suggest the Cache Owner resolve the situation. When the BTC is not the actual owner, we would have to advise them that they do not have the authority to make any requests in relation to the status of a geocache. If we are in doubt as to the ownership of said property, it would be best to let the reviewers work with the person raising the issue. Even if the BTC doesn't actually own the property they obviously have much sway with the property owners and a collaborative solution that benefits everyone is certainly better than an argument that makes everyone lose. Many other BTA's have established geocaches of their own, they are all obviously aware of geocaching and this hopefully is just an isolated situation. But it might be a great time to extend an invitation for a meeting, again so that everyone can be on the same page and working mutually to keep everyone's game plan in mind. CD

To be transparent with the process, here is the timeline of the events as they happened. GC280PA was archived by the cache owner on 08/23/2011 There were no other unpublished caches in the area at that time Someone created GC33??? on 09/06/2011 This effectively reserved the spot as a "work in progress" GC35D21 was created by the same cache owner as GC280PA as a replacement on 10/05/2011 They were told that someone else had already started working on a cache here, and I would contact them to see if they would release the spot. I also told them that I would rather unarchive GC280PA instead of publishing the new listing, but that could only happen if the cache owner of GC33??? was willing to release the spot. The cache owner of GC33??? has exercised their right to hold the claim of the spot. They can do so indefinitely as long as they respond to any requests made by any reviewer within a timely fashion. Typically that means within one month, give or take. So it is a month to respond, not to use the place they have reserved. If they don't reply, I archive it. In the past I may have told people who they should speak with, but I no longer do that. However one exception is that we will still direct one cache owner to another when they are BOTH submitting caches with a future publish date for the same event. As an example, "Hey Dr. House, you should talk to Northern Penguin about GC47ABT for BFL 11 because you are both placing containers in the same 50m area."

The person that is holding the location has replied and indicated that they still plan to use the location for a new cache in the future. As such, the previous cache cannot be resurrected. The immediate area is still reserved. CD

Recently the reviewers of Ontario approached Groundspeak with a request. We asked if Ontario could be used for a two month period to test the idea of allowing an Event to be listed for the sole purpose of group caching (organized cache hunt). We are pleased to announce that they agreed. For the months of November and December it will be possible to create an Event Cache to simply go geocaching. We are very interested to see what the community creates during this period and how these events are received. This test is exclusive to Ontario and will end on the 31st of December. We may have to limit the number of group hunt events that are listed in any given area. With the exception of allowing group hunts, all other guidelines still apply to the review process, like the 14 days advance notice. It should go without saying that each of these events, the logs posted on them and any forum feedback will be tracked for discussion with Groundspeak at the end of the test. This should be viewed as a one-time opportunity to explore a new way to be social with fellow geocachers on the trail and not an indicator or future developments. We look forward to this study and your feedback. If you have questions about this you can reply within this forum thread or email me directly at cachedrone@gmail.com CD

Well since it has been 5 days... The reason for the delay is that someone else placed a listing at or near the location in question. By the rules and guidelines we use, that person has up to 30 days to decide if they are still going to use their listing. They replied once to my request for more info to let me know that they were deciding if they were going to use the spot or not. There has been no further communication. The proverbial clock is ticking... CD

Here it is even shorter

When I said this It was to address this You see, I view what you said there to imply that there was no discussion and no providing of links to existing articles from the guidelines and knowledgebooks. There was. It was not accepted. It was then justified by reviewer interpretation. That too was not accepted. The option to escalate to appeals was given. The same "but it's not" statements were raised again. The position from a guideline application was repeated ad naseum. The knowledgebook article on line 7 says in black and white "No business name or product". That isn't a debatable point any more than death is inevitable. But still, people wanted to banter it over their perceived view of what the impact was and how it doesn't really promote. It doesn't matter. I disagree with death being inevitable, because I am still alive. Sure. So I sincerely doubt the drama could have been avoided unless the people that wished to debate the semantics were instead to accept the decision and contact appeals@ as suggested. Instead what we all got into was Cause and Effect CD

What happened? Still no listing. I could tell you all but I think it would be best if "gg" gets to reply. My version is that I am waiting too. CD

Clear explanations were provided. They just were not accepted by some people. Every effort was made to explain the decisions to those people that were either directly or indirectly impacted, to no avail in some cases. However I will not entertain how things could have been handled differently, as that is a two way street. Perhaps my error was in continuing the discussion as long as I did and instead should have said "because I said so". I prefer to not close doors in such a fashion. But from my memory, there was no compromise from either position. CD edit: fix linkypoo

While true, you can understand why it would at least be nice to know that the issue is being taken to a higher level, and it's not simply a "because I say so" decision, necessarily. That would alleviate a whole freaking lot of stress and controversy. eta: heck, even "my hands are tied" would take some of the heat off the reviewers in difficult decisions, if indeed it goes beyond just your own decision. Just sayin'. While I cannot speak for other reviewers, I am not the type to escalate, deflect or shift 'blame' to others. My view has been, as it still is, that when I point to a certain guideline and how I interpret what is written it is done so to show how the decision was reached. I do however offer the option for people to escalate on their own if they are not in agreement with my interpretations or what I am able to say yes to. It was never intended to be displayed as "because I said so" or "my hands are tied" but merely "this is what I see, and how I am addressing it." CD

+1 I presume you're not referring to the freshly wrapped collection of meat and/or vegetables? Yes, but it also demonstrates that even though on the surface we make every effort to stay as close to the guidelines as possible there are times when we are working behind the scenes to help usher in updates and changes to improve the game. Understandably there are things we cannot discuss in an open forum until we get clearance to do so, and this would be one of those times. CD

I'm not talking about linking, just describing the type of food served there. For example "This place specializes in ribs and wings but there are some vegetarian dishes". How detailed can we get before crossing into the commercial content/advertising side of things? I was just wondering if there was going to be some reviewer discretion in this area as well. Wordings like that sound informative, not promotional or being done to endorse the venue. That's kinda what we are suggesting is that people avoid marketing lingo and adjectives that draw conclusions. In your example the restaurant has ribs and wings, not great ribs and cheap wings. They also offer vegetarian options, not a wide variety of tasty vegetarian meals that will satisfy your hunger. As one Groundspeak person said, if we feel marketed to then likely there is an agenda behind it. CD

Can you be more clear on what you are asking? I hope this isn't that "links to menus" thing again because that has not changed at all based on this excerpt from "commercial caches" that says It contains links to businesses If you mean something else then please elaborate. CD