NCreviewer

Don't post total BS in the forums looking for false sympathy. You will get called out on it. You never even mentioned your volunteering in the email sent to the reviewer. The response you got said your overall tone of the email was offensive.

Okay, I was stuck on the "required" and "flexible" but I see now how they are referring to two different things. So, I guess you are already saying we have the flexibility I am asking for but that it just doesn't extend as far as I would like. I guess that is fair but I am looking for something more abstract. You might be looking for a while. The reviewers are constantly trying to remove the abstract from the discussion as well as the grey areas. But we acknowledge that they will always exist. This isn't one of those situations. By definition a container must contain or enclose the log. They cannot be the same object. If I assume that common sense in reviewers is common. Thank you; we try our best. If I Hypothesize that a reviewer is not looking at 100s of caches a month but less than a 100. I cannot speak for all of the members of the team, but you are wrong with this hypothesis applying to most of the reviewers I communicate with. And that cache owners put a solid description of what the cache container, hide, and location are like. Some do and some don't. From what I can see, the CO of the log cache in question did not. Is it inconceivable that the reviewer could look at a cache like this and publish it. If there was full disclosure in a reviewer note prior to publication-yes it is inconceivable. With the same guidelines but with a little more subjectivity allowed. See line one-the reviewers don't want to exercise more subjectivity. We strive to minimize the grey areas. I also ask that for the moment we ignore the slippery slope. Why do you want to ignore reality? Meh, the first time I saw this idea used was at Geowoodstock V in 2007. But since events are not required to have physical logs it never caused the level of angst that this one has. Many events do have physical logs, but only as a symbolic totem. I've also seen surfboards, jumbo picnic baskets, and a life-size cardboard cow used as event logs.

It's likely that there are no locals. 150 miles of highway, three small towns, total population around 1000. I'm betting that the cache blocking the OP's is a vacation cache as well. You would lose that bet. The CO of the blocking lives less that 50 miles away. He owns another cache less than 10 miles away. The blocking cache has been found almost 100 times without any issues. This is a simple case of someone thinking they have followed the guidelines, but failing to. And then blaming that failure on cell service and the fact that the app wouldn't show a PMO to him at the time. At least they are asking someone else in the area to help them out instead of merely ranting about it and leaving the geotrash out there.

You guys forgot to mention that linking to a geocachingspoilers video that shows other placements that do not meet the guidelines isn't a very strong defense. "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true". Bonjour?

It's a very noble idea to place a cache in her memory, but be sure to do it the right way. Get a local to agree to help with maintenance. One of the other reasons there is a guideline against placing caches on vacation is knowledge of local permit policies. It would be a very good idea to discuss your plans with the local volunteer reviewers, not just some local cachers. There may be a good reason that there aren't any caches placed there. I routinely have to deny caches placed in prohibited areas in NC particularly at the shore and in the mountains by well meaning visitors to our state. If you cannot get your cache published, you are just littering. You can find the reviewers by scrolling to the bottom of the nearby listings and find their 'published' logs.

Hello warcara, I'm the reviewer that you are trying to communicate with. As my good friend Keystone has already posted, I have left several reviewer notes on your cache page, and even edited the title of two of them to get your attention. Someone mentioned checking your spam folder to see if you are missing the email copies of the logs, but you can see them on the cache pages. Please open up your pages, scroll to the bottom, and read my notes. Each submission is reviewed separately. To reply, you should post a reviewer note of your own. All reviewer notes are auto-archived at publication so that the conversation remains private. This isn't the best place for our discussion, but I saw your thread and decided to post here once. You can also click on my name, and email me through my profile. Be sure to give me the gc# of your caches when you contact me if you aren't posting notes to the cache page. See you back on the cache pages and let's work together to get them published.

Yes, I understand that. I'm trying to isolate what this lapse in judgement was. We've established that you think he shouldn't have published the cache, but I'm trying to understand what it is about the situation that outweighs his responsibility as a reviewer to publish caches submitted in his area. Honestly, you've already admitted that you phrased your initial comment as you did precisely because it would cause a stir, so just drop that junk. Now that we've established that you don't really think the reviewer should be fired, I don't understand why you don't want to help us see why you think his actions were wrong. It's not as if my questions are argumentative. Hate it, ignore it, discredit it, FTF is a part of geocaching. The reviewer used his status as a reviewer to get an FTF for which (although done multiple times) another reviewer lost his status. If it wasn't OK for a reviewer to do multiple times how can it be OK for a reviewer to do once? All I'm saying is the reviewer either acted inappropriately or made a mistake, either way his actions were not appropriate. You are stating your opinion of the reviewer's actions, and this situation. You are entitled to have this opinion. You are in the minority of those who have posted to this thread with this opinion. I'm happy to share some of my views of this situation with my reviewer hat on. Yes, there is a confidential reviewer Code of Conduct. It's something originally created for reviewers by reviewers. Groundspeak has adopted the COC as part of new reviewer onboarding and training. Yes, there is some mention of how to handle FTF and new publications. Groundspeak doesn't recognize FTF as anything official. There isn't anything in the COC that would prohibit this situation. Per the COC reviewers shouldn't be FTF on non-traditional hides. Since FTF isn't officially recognized by Groundspeak, and since being FTF isn't an issue in the COC, there wasn't any inappropriate act nor any mistake made in this situation. That's just the opinion of this reviewer, most likely the opinion of just about everyone else on the volunteer review team, and the lackeys we work with. Since I haven't discussed it with them direction I cannot say for certain. But we have had similar discussions about similar situations. The FTF situation about another former reviewer that you have referenced several times in this thread was much more complicated. That's all I will say about that situation. Satisfied?

If the cache is placed with permission on private property and there is a reasonable dress code to enter the property, I would probably publish it. You couldn't go into a library or restaurant without a shirt or shoes on. But if the cache was placed on the site of a nudist colony and you could only get the cache by getting nekkid I wouldn't publish it. And if you had to wear the specified attire as a condition for logging the cache it would be an ALR and would not be published. Are there really yacht clubs out there that require wearing a blazer simply to be on the property? If there are I doubt that they would ever grant permission for a cache. Back when ALR's were discontinued, but before they were all edited or archived I got into a dustup as a player with a CO who threatened to delete my find because I failed to post a pic of me wearing the raggedy ann wig that was in the cache. Silly carp like that are exactly why ALR's were done away with and not even grandfathered in.

Why would you pay them $25 to $30 per hour plus benefits. I'm sure it could be outsourced to India for a fraction of that. I can see it now: Brilliant-thank you for that. I have just added it to my menu of boilerplate messages and will be sending you a 10 rupee royalty check for each and every time that I use it. समीक्षक स्वयंसेवक

I don't post in the forums much, but want to address this specific thought. You cannot have a singular standard for the management of disabled caches, and there is no good reason why finding a disabled one should not count. It is even possible that a listing is active when you pulled your data, or when you found it, but gets disabled before you log it. That shouldn't count? I just finished a periodic sweep of all disabled caches in NC and looked at 400+ listings. They are disabled for a wide variety of reasons-recent DNF's indicate it may be MIA, recent find logs indicate a maintenance need, location is undergoing construction/logging/development and is inaccessible, CO is in the armed forces and is currently deployed, CO has some health issues and cannot maintain right now, location is closed for season, and a few others. Each disabled listing needs to be viewed as an individual and not smothered with a blanket practice.

Sorry Gigi & Pop, but that won't happen. The whole point of the NM log was to give the community something that does not get the reviewer involved. So I do not get copies of those logs sent to me, and cannot track this down even if I wanted to. Feel free to contact this cacher and help them better understand when to use that log option.

The business card sized ones are available at the Groundspeak store. So far they only come in English and German, but I bet they would be interested in a Spanish version too if someone provided a good translation.

This attitude alone makes you a winner!

The reviewer disabled the cache and reported: The bolded text above means the reviewer must have been to the cache site. This was the first I've ever heard of a reviewer physically inspecting a cache. (Although it's possible he was there on personal business and took note of this fact.) My question is: Do you know of any other instances of this, and why might a reviewer do it? I can think of only two occasions when I have done this in nearly 6 years of reviewing. Both times it was a minor detour on my way home to check the site so that I could help the CO get his cache listed. Once the hide was slightly less than 150' from RR tracks at the edge of a soccer park. The CO replied that he didn't even see any tracks when he hid the cache. I knew they were elevated at least 12' at the nearby road, and wanted to see what the embankment looked like closer to the cache. As I suspected, the last 25' was a steep climb from the park area, and was completely overgrown with shrubs and briers. No chance of anyone wandering into the RR's Right of Way when looking for this one. The second time I just couldn't understand the way the CO explained his unique method of urban cammo, and the hide was only a few miles from home. After seeing the placement I felt it complied with the guidelines and was able to hit the publish button as well. In both cases I didn't bother logging finds as a player for several days after they were published. But as already pointed out-reviewers are perfectly able to be FTF's on traditional caches. But the odds are against us as we are still sitting at our computers when the insta-notification goes out. And someone is likely to be in the field already, and possibly nearby. Around here most routine hides are found within an hour of publication. Really-I don't see any puzzle or multi caches in your profile, published or otherwise. Others have already pointed out the guidelines for those cache types, and done a more detailed analysis of what you do have published and archived without getting them published. So unless you have some concrete details to back this up, you might want to consider retracting that statement. Most reviewers I know like climbing trees. Some are even nuts.

test

And some are merely a plate of food.

I don't see anything wrong with nudging a cache owner to maintain their hide. Nor do I see anything wrong with posting a NA to alert the local reviewer if a cache owner isn't responding nor maintaining their hides. I see lots wrong with replacing them yourself with an angel/throwdown cache, but that's a discussion for another thread. The only time I feel that action is warranted is if you know the owner personally, and can get permission to maintain it for them since you just happen to be there. It shouldn't be done for any other reason. Replacing a missing cache that isn't being maintained is just perpetuating the maintenance problems of the current cache, postponing the same MIA/NA situation for someone else to deal with later on, and admitting that you have a problem posting DNF's. Back to the Original Poster-you are not rocking the boat by posting a Needs Maintenance/Archived log. Those tools exist for good reasons, mostly to allow the geocaching community to self-police itself with regard to missing or bad cache placements. And the narrow definition of bad in this case is one that doesn't comply with the guidelines, not one you simply do not like for any number of reasons.

I would personally keep the container description (other than the correct size) a secret. Place it in an area where it blends in nicely, but don't make it into a "needle in a haystack" hide. A small fake rock hide in a sea of Riprap or a boulder field isn't clever, or fun. Agreed. The best way to place them is to find a good spot 20-30 from the riprap pile and be sure to post very accurate coords. Anyone who stops trusting their GPS and geosense too soon will plunge into the riprap. When they finally find the well placed cache, they will only have themselves to curse.

So now it's really closed. Those who hesitated will have to procure their own unicorns, and negotiate with the yard-scalpers to pay for storage while they are attending the fantastic event, enjoying the award winning tasty food, and having a great time.

And that is exactly why caches can and are published at all hours of the day and night around here. Who wants to see caches published on a regular schedule when this kind of fun can be had?

Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukah/ Happy New Year! May your trails be clear, and the caches fun! Reindeer sausage anyone?

Sorry, but I don't frequent the forums much so I missed the roll call at first. Here's me at the Annual NCGO Costume Party. Normally I only have one head.

A very Happy Holiday and a Big Basket of Fresh Hush Puppies from the Tarheel State to everyone!! My you find whatever you are seeking in the New Year!

I do not frequent these forums often, and have never posted in them before, but a close friend linked me to this special thread. I'd like to offer my congrats to the entire family on behalf of all North Carolina geocachers! You must be one proud papa. I'd also like to send one of my Groundspeak issued reviewer volunteer coins for Benny Jr. to add to his collection (but ask him to hold onto this one ) Check your email TH. CONGRATS!