kewfriend

Before I open this topic, I would like to say that overwhelmingly the way that GC.COM operates has my full admiration and support. However .... As organisations grow they need to be able to adapt to change and often organisations need to formalise unofficial operating practises which may have served well in less busy times. I am aware that bar a small core of Lackeys, generally GC.COM is a goodwill based organisation reliant on volunteers and cooperation. This is both a strength and a complicating factor. Generally GC.COM does invite properly consensus views and comments on its changes and developments. Not all are always welcome even if the reasoning is understood. The main area that may still be opaque seems to be the review process itself and in particular the processes and procedures which reviewers are meant to follow - and here I am not referring just to the judging of caches but also to how reviewers are expected to interact with each other and feed back and respond to geocachers on a wide range of issues. A simple example - if an email other than a cache reviewer note is sent to and received by a reviewer, should it at least be acknowledged - or should it be explicit to all geocachers that direct emailing of reviewers is not acceptable? At this stage rather than 'sound off on issues' that are of my particular concern, it might be useful to see if other geo-cachers also feel that there are issues that need to be opened for discussion and what areas of GC.COM operation could benefit from more transparency?

Yes other caches are being approved, over 20 yesterday. The cache setter has not had any communication from anyone / anything associated with GC - so no judgement calls can be made. The cache setter has broken cover by commenting in the USA forums. The international possible frustrations will now be apparent.

Good luck FRODO. The rest of the world is hanging on Camden!

That route has been explored.

All 'fake' containers have problems associated with them . The setter's coordinates need to be 'spot on' otherwise the the geocacher will be tempted to explore 'non-fake' similar local containers with the potential disruption involved. The setter (without giving too much away) needs to allude to the 'fake' nature of the container or have the container available in such a way that there can be no reasonable cause for doubt. The geocacher needs to behave completely responsibly and not explore containers that 'may' be in the correct area but are quite obviosuly 'kosher' and not geo-containers. As ever its swings and roundabouts. I for instance have a container that looks at first glance to be a 'railing' but on closer inspection couldn't conceivably be a 'railing'. I'd expect the same of a bird box: and not having a bird entrance is a good start.

This is about cache approval and I hasten to add does not involve UK reviewers. It does however involve a cache in another land with which I am remotely involved. This cache is 'stuck' in that it is in a review queue but the cache setter has had no communication from his/her reviewer or any Groundspeak Lackey for far more than the normal length of time. The setter is at his/her wits end. On the cache setter's behalf as an interested person who might try for valid reasons to log the cache etc I also have very very politely enquired of the the local reviewers and also of Groundspeak in Seattle, whether there are any issues holding up the cache: reviewer sickness, called away for work purposes and unavailable, family committments - etc. absolute silence. I can understand a whole host of 'protocol' issues involved, not stepping on toes etc but absolute silence is very difficult to deal with. Do I and the setter (and others also waiting) sit on our hands? Do we jettison the cache? Does Groundspeak have a certain duty to communicate? Is absolute silence acceptable? ADVICE ANYONE?

We're graduating to Puzzles and Multis because by and large they tend to have more learning interest associated with them: having said that, there's nothing we like more than a good walk in the woods to see the bears.

Has the man no shame :cry: - such self promotion! - and even better a link to a closed reviewer only URL Losing the plot comes with losing marbles and youth - oh well its time I started the collection box .... he deserves a nice send off

I have just archived another of my caches - more in sadnes than in anger. This was in a glorious tourist location in Rye but sadly regularly visited by vandals who so trashed the local area that keeping a cache there became a less than brilliant idea. Another cache (our first) I archived after I had removed yet another bagful of CITO and Dog Muck from the location - twas the t*rd that broke the camel's back - so to speak. Two I archived when I misjudged how much The Thames could rise. Another I archived when the cache was found by boy scouts - well the scoutmaster did return me the box and its contents. Another I archived when I was informed the local park was a rapist's haven. Then there was the cache I archived after having tried for a year to get it into a local wildlife reserve: I was up against not the LWT, who were more than happy for the cache to be where it was ... indeed considering as bringing the right sort of person to the area. No I was defeated by the local middle class twit volunteers who thought that the only animals that should be allowed into the area were themselves and any fox or miscreant hoodlum that could jump the fence. The LWT 'bowed' to local pressure. Of course there was the cache I archived because the final clue kept getting 'stolen'. There must have been nearly 20 copies of it in circulation before I gave up. Have I just been unlucky .... ? Why /when do you archive .... ? Should I have generally 'hung in there' ? What are your archive stories ?

I have a lot of time for every person who has posted a comment on this thread - and I think its just about been handled with sensitivity. I love HH's caches, I always enjoy AW's little grumbles and how the reviewers keep their Zaphod-head above water I'll never know. I have always found our reviewers flexible and sensible. I have my grumbles (all those lost central London caches grrrrr), abd from time to time our USA cousins have me tearing my hair out till they realise that the USA is not the centre of the planet - its KEW!! From time to time "I've stretched a point" on my caches, and the only one I felt narked about was the one that had to be archived when the Boy Scouts found it by accident ... but then boys will be boys .... and I did get back the whole container. I've a joint new series about to hit the world and I know all the reviewers (worldwide) have been a little flexible in how they have allowed the series - so generally its a THUMBS UP from me here in the centre of the PLANET / UNIVERSE - aka KEW!

GC1958W Muggled before it even went live! Its the Belgian link in a large international multicache and we were all about to go live with the caches and poor old Belgium called a halt - well a delay only I hope. Strangely the cache itself was left intact but the front page of the logbook had the Belgian equivalent of 'you've been rumbled' . So now our Brussels friends have to go out and find a new location ...... zzzzzzzzzz

ditto - dates allowing

hmmm ... worse than I thought 10% DNF ...... but 50% of these were actually NWTs (never was there) 50% of my DNFs have actually been archived ...... makes me feel a little better And I did go back to convert 50% of the DNFs into Finds so ...... my DNF score is really 5% aren't statistics wonderful things ??? (edited for spelling being not so wunderbar!)

We hoovered up caches around us in the early days which had the predictable result that there weren't many around locally. Our profile always showed us as autumnal and winter cachers (no need to explain why) but that meant that a trip out in winter really now has to be worth it - and it usually is. We are quite happy to motor for 40 mins for a carefully chosen group of well sited caches. We are now 'picky'. We enjoy multis as long as they are not just number harvesters and a successful puzzle find is always a real treat. (Still have about half the 'X' Marks the Spot series to do - and I've never cracked any of Tjapukai's puzzles - not a single one!) We enjoy meets - but these days personally I really enjoy planning to set a cache: the research, the identification of a good location, the creation of an interesting cache page .... And - hey folks - I've got a whole host of devious caches in the pipeline. I was out today doing yet more research and even enjoying getting wet!

Well CurryKew - I could be persuaded - how about you. Sounds like the first lines of a song ....

<snip> decided to bite my tongue rather than add a 'kew-ish' obvious comment! <snip>

A local geocacher near here works in Internet server security - feel free to contact me.

< double posting removed - seems I cant even do that right! >

Not me - but the Ridgeway was the scene of one of my more foolish geo-incidents. I used my car SatNav to identify a short cut between two caches and it suggested a drive along the Ridgeway - so of course being the utter plonker I am and completely believing of SatNav - I started the drive up the Ridgeway. For the first mile or so my dear old S Type Jag 4.2 Turbo managed the farm track quality of the road well enough but then as the track degenerated into basically a hilly waterlogged quagmire I began to have doubts. Finally after two miles I realised that I couldn't turn round and I was in deep poo - almost literally. As the Jag pulled to the top of the Ridgeway and I looked ahead at the next section I realised that I was in the wrong place in the wrong vehicle! So unable to turn around I then had to reverse two miles along the Ridgeway - thankfully mostly downhill praying not to meet anything. The wheels skidded this way and that and several times I was nearly completely stuck: the shame of an RAC rescue ..... aaaargh. Anyway I finally got down - so no its not my keys nor my car ..... but it could have been!

Last cache we visited: Took nothing except geocoin - box was empty Left a whole host of new eXmas goodies to restock the box Forgot to bring along another geocoin to replace one we took I suspect we wont be the last this New Year restocking caches with prezzies from Santa

As I said before - "devil & deep blue sea". To be fair to CA this was the first false positive for me in six years. In normal circumstances contacting GC.COM directly would have been right, but it was New Year's Eve which seemed a prime time to dump an infection on a popular server. CA has indeed isolated at least one nasty drive-by Trojan for me placed innocuously on one of the London tourist websites - so it does happen. I understand exactly where sTeamTraen is coming from, but I suppose one cannot hope for more than intelligent watchfulness. I thank those that responded so quickly to identify this as a false positive - and CA had shipped out the correction within 3 hours (must have been a few red faces around there methinks!).

QUITE!! I unreservedly apologise for the alarm caused - and CA shipped out a correction within a couple of hours. I'm not sure what the 'punter' is meant to do, and even if my reaction was an over-reaction, it wasn't that much of an over-reaction. The problem is that if you have a 'locked down PC', and detect an issue, you really do have to warn ASAP, those not locked down. Case of devil and deep blue sea - it seems.

OK - thanks - and sorry for the alarm. Better safe than sorry.

I use Computer Associates (CA) Pest Patrol and AntiVirus. About 15 mins ago my software reported that the Geocaching.Com website was infected with the JavaScript JS/SNZ.a driveby infection. False postives are sometimes reported by security software but CA has a d*mn good track record and I would refrain from using the geocaching.com website until the all-clear is given that this java script infection is not what my software reports it to be.

I use the CA Pest Patrol and Antivirus which reported this JavaScript driveby infection from the geocaching.com website about 15 mins ago now. False positives are (of course) reported but until the all clear is given I woyld refrain from using the site without adequate protection.