Greatland Reviewer
-
Posts
31 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Greatland Reviewer
-
-
2 hours ago, Nomex said:
To be honest, I wouldn't mind that at all. When I've made a mistake, I'm more than happy to admit it, and make any necessary corrections. When it's on the other party, well...usually the community sorts it out for me. Kind of a win-win in my opinion.
I agree. Nothing to hide here. Reviewers have a Code of Conduct we are required to abide by and we are held accountable by Groundspeak.
By the way, the proper channel for raising a concern is through the Help Center at https://www.geocaching.com/help/. I routinely provide that link to local cachers who complain about how I did something.
Raising an issue through unofficial channels such as Facebook or these Forums only increases the amount of hearsay that has to be sifted through by the folks at Groundspeak when a matter does come to their attention.
-
.png)
1
-
-
As a general rule, archived cache pages are not locked. However, if there are extenuating circumstances involving the Cache Owner OR inappropriate logs by other Cachers (using the cache page as a forum, couch logging, etc.), a page(s) will get locked.
Depending on the circumstances, a page can be unlocked after a "cooling off period."
-
I review for Alaska, Hawaii, and Greece, and help another Reviewer with covering problem caches in several dozen countries around the world. I can't wait to receive my booklet of travel vouchers to pay each cache in my queue a pre-publishing visit. Have Passport, will travel (within the limits of the five weeks of vacation my real job employer provides)!!!
Extremely unlikely...we're too busy answering e-mails, reaping (reviewing caches that have NA logs, growing strings of DNFs, "temporarily" disabled caches that have been so for more than thirty days), answering land manager's questions, teaching at public and geocaching events, responding to irate property owners who weren't asked for permission for a cache to be placed on their property, and iterating as many times as it takes with Cache Owners who submitted caches that do not comply with Groundspeak's Guidelines even though said Cache Owners checked those two little boxes at the end of the cache submission process that says "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache," and "Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement."I bet that local with all the FTF's is actually my reviewers player account!
Depending on the day, 10%-50% of new cache submissions in my queue don't get published the first time I look at them.
That's up to the Cache Owner and the Reviewer. Many caches get beta-tested, especially in remote areas when learning about bad coordinates means a long trek back to ground zero. Reviewers started out as cachers and continue to enjoy finding caches just as the rest of the geocaching community does.Oh, yeah. That brings up the FTF issue. Should the volunteer on-site reviewer sign the end of the log as a beta tester?
Reviewers can (but most don't) chase the FTF after the e-mail notification hits cachers' e-mail accounts. However, most do not (see above list of other assigned duties). I personally log three to five FTFs per year, but most of those are in the backcountry long after the cache was published.Should the volunteer on-site reviewer claim FTF?
It depends. See above response about signing as a beta-tester. It's also possible the Reviewer attended an event that featured caches for attendees to find that are not published for all other Cachers to chase until after the event. Reviewers are selected in large part for their integrity and take pains to be above reproach which why one won't generally see them chasing FTFs, especially on puzzle/mystery caches and multi-caches, until the general caching population has had a big head start (a week or more, or until the FTF has been logged).Is a volunteer on-site reviewer cheating by finding the cache before it is published on the geocaching.com site?Groundspeak is petty swift to dispatch a Reviewer who does not live up their vision of a Community Volunteer. Enough care is taken during the vetting process that very, very few Reviewers have been sacked.
-
Interesting...there is one 2013 log that was deleted in 2015 and then a bunch of 2015 logs that were deleted in 2015, followed by three deleted "commentary" notes. What changed in 2015?
Folks are correct about the ALR allowance going away in 2009, but there are still caches with ALRs because they haven't been corrected by the Cache Owner and because someone hasn't brought it to the local Reviewer's or Groundspeak's attention. Had I, as a Reviewer, come across the cache after 2009, I would have asked that the sunrise requirement be made optional.
I also review EarthCaches. I don't seek out photo requirements, but when I see one, I request the Cache Owner to make the photo optional.
-
Geocache publishing is based on trust between the Cache Owner and the Volunteer Reviewer. Until given reason to believe otherwise, the Volunteer Reviewer believes that the Cache Owner actually did read and understand the Guidelines, including the Guideline about obtaining adequate permission, when s/he checked the box at the end of the new cache submission process. Unless a cache is in a known cache exclusion zone, the Volunteer Reviewer has little recourse but to trust the Cache Owner and publish the cache if all other Guidelines are also met.Then shouldn't the reviewer be responsible for publishing them?
-
The cache in question is less than 500 feet from not one, but two of your own caches, so an appeal on the proximity issues would not be successful. Your Reviewer explained the level of latitude he could show and it would not take much of a relocation to follow his direction.
However, cachers should not reticent to appeal other issues, especially if the guideline(s) in question appear to have room for latitude. There are situations when a Reviewer may encourage an appeal or go to appeals first to test new concepts. Some of the game's newest variations have come about as the result of a successful appeal on an issue not previously considered.
-
This approach works very well. If your local Reviewer publishes predictably once each day, submit your caches on different days. If your local Reviewer publishes predictably twice per day, split your submissions between times of the day. If you local Reviewer publishes randomly, submit your caches over a time period to scratch your itch for control of when your caches get published.
If you have caches you want published at a specific time to coincide with an event or other special occasion, let your local Reviewer know ahead of time (several days) and there is a reasonable chance your request can be honored.
If your local Reviewer posts a Reviewer Note requesting a change or asking a question, respond to it promptly. Many publishing delays are caused by the Cache Owner.
-
I fail to see how publishing 30 caches on a Sunday morning when a VOLUNTEER Reviewer could be sleeping in or spending time with the kids or in church or training dogs or hiking or biking or even caching deserves to be called "lazy."Who hasn't experienced the lazy reviewer who publishes 30 new caches on a Sunday morning?
This Reviewer lazily checked his queues three times on Easter Sunday in between family and other activities.
The FTF race isn't officially recognized as part of the game by Groundspeak. Reviewers remain neutral when publishing caches based on their free time to review and publish. It's not their role to mess with the FTF race. Allowing individual cachers to publish their own caches to mess with the FTF race would open things up to all sorts of abuse and cachers getting angry with each other as one cacher "games" another by publishing when s/he knows certain people are at work or otherwise indisposed.
I would answer the rest of your questions, but I'm feeling lazy...
-
Please see the post I wrote last year about this cache.I hate having caches that old getting archived. But when the cache owner is no longer active and someone did a throw down? (and we know how many of you hate that
) and it has never been even found which would be different if it had been. I would say it's toast. Also if someone did replace it, was it where the CO placed it? And years of weather and who knows what how do we even know the replacement is still there. I hear many of you say over and over the CO is responsible for maintaining their own caches. Well there is no more CO to do that.
That and the cache page is more like a forum post.
And one of those cachers complaining and being rude on the cache page, I had to deal with him once when he sent me rude remarks. Not a nice person and is no longer active themselves.
There are threads in these very forums started by cachers upset about what they perceive as overly aggressive archiving, yet for some reason cachers who have no intention of ever coming even within several thousand miles of this cache have a keen interest in its demise despite the fact the only site visit is a logged DNF by a cacher with relatively few finds who was naïve enough to drop a throw-down cache. I can understand the cache having a curiosity factor because it is the oldest unfound cache in the world, but I don't understand why so many folks feel compelled to tell the local Reviewer to archive a cache they have never visited and likely never will. It's not like the cache is taking up space in their Pocket Queries or is sitting in the middle of a cache-saturated area.
With respect to the cache page being "more like a forum post," that's happened because some cachers don't understand cache pages are supposed to be reserved for documenting the cache hunt experience, whether successful or not, and logging the movements of trackables. When the cache page Notes have gotten out of hand, I have directed cachers to these forums to continue the commentary. Beyond that, Reviewers are generally not the Log Police unless the logs contain content that violate the Terms of Use.
-
Cache Owners are supposed to provide details about their hides and permission in the "Reviewer Note" box.
They are?
Since when? If asked, sure. But I don't normally provide any information unless I am asked for it.On the cache submission form:
Reviewer Note:To help expedite your geocache's publishing, please provide any details or information that would be helpful to the geocache's reviewer.
-
If those e-mails were sent through the geocaching.com system, you can report them to Groundspeak and the good folks there will set the senders straight. E-mails such as those are a violation of the Terms of Use of the site.I got angry emails from 2 guys over that one, telling me not to be a cache cop.
Geocaching is dependent on self-policing by the players to avoid the playing field becoming littered with dysfunctional caches. Those cachers' anger was clearly misdirected...if they are going to get angry with anyone, it should be the Cache Owner who couldn't be bothered to take care of the cache.
-
Yes, and I archive those without any remorse, especially when the Cache Owner encourages photologging because they can't/won't perform maintenance or they can't reach their local maintainer, who probably never existed in the first place.Isn´t this the same issue as people doing PHOTOLOGS in non-existing caches?!?!? Come on man... and woman!
-
That's simply irrational!I attended 4 PI day events (from 7:45am till 9:26pm), found 17 caches (including two night caches) and 1 DNF. I was told I did it wrong as my ratio of caches to events should have been 22/7. So I should have stopped at 12 caches, and counting the DNF as 1/2, that would give me a more proper ratio for the day. Dang, missed by that much!
-
Seems reasonable since at least a portion of the event stays at the posted requirements during the entire posted time. I see this model working for events that feature hunts for temporary caches, scavenger hunts, or other contests such as featured at the Texas Challenge Mega this weekend.My other question would be if the hike (or other moving part) could still take place during the stated event time period, if people still stayed at the event coordinates. Example: a lot of my rafting events have attendees who stay at the event coords where the bbq takes place, while some people leave from there, raft, and then come back. The actual event still takes place for several hours at the coords while some people leave in the middle.
-
I wish you right-hand coast Reviewers would review with more consistency. I'm forever having to refer to "there is no cache precedence" due to the existence of this cache that is in a hole drilled in a tree covered with dirt very close to a school and another cache.For example, I am starting to have second thoughts about publishing Cheech Gang's "Scenic Railroad Trestles Near Schools" series of buried PVC Pipe caches.For the love of Jeremy!
After all the back and forth we've had on my attempts to get this series published this is how you let me know you might deny it. You gave me no hint. I've already cut the pipes and I doubt Home Depot will accept a return now. My soul aches.
You could re-purpose the pipes into stools for people to sit on at upcoming events. I forbid you to move around.
-
Cachers are encouraged to note the published date on many of these Events. Several of them were published prior to the Guideline change and would require some modification before being published today.Events that appear to be like what you want, but probably won't pass muster with you, although I think there's one that's right up your alley.
-
If the question behind your question is how do you get the Owner of a traveling cache with stale coordinates to update the coordinates, the answer is to bring it to the attention of your local Reviewer so s/he can nudge the Cache Owner. If the nudge fails to get the desired result, the cache can be archived.
-
I received the first email at 3:25 PM and when I open the email the timestamp says 1:56 PM.
I received the tenth email at 8:44 PM and when I open the email the timestamp says 2:26 PM.
Your answer is in those timestamps. The lag between 1:56 PM and 3:25 PM isn't on Groundspeak's end.
I agree. When I publish caches I oftentimes haven't moved on to the next cache before the notification for the first cache hits my phone and desktop e-mail inboxes.
-
The Guidelines don't spell out a host's responsibility. I digressed a bit by applying my paradigm of an event where someone(s) is leading the festivities. Perhaps other regions have "hostless" events?So again I ask: is this a change, so now a host has to be there for some purpose or else delegate to someone else to be there for that purpose? If so, could you specify those responsibilities? I'm not seeing this clearly spelled out, but your responses imply that the host's presence is the actual definition of the event's time period. But what I'm not understanding is what the penalty would be if he left early. Would the event suddenly become invalid so no one can log attended?
Besides, I wouldn't even try to spell out an event host's responsibilities because they would vary widely depending on the type, size, and location of an event and are well outside the reach of the Guidelines.
The Guidelines don't get into penalties. As a Reviewer, I won't be policing events. However, if it comes to my attention that an event host changed a Guideline-compliant Event to one that does not comply with the Guidelines after the Event is published, I would certainly look more carefully at Events submitted by the same cacher or group in the future.
-
If this thread is still about Events and CITOs, I don’t see that anything has been banned.No matter the rationale, new guidelines always result in banning some sort of cache that is popular - at least for some segment of geocachers.
There is nothing in the Guidelines that says a role can’t be delegated. Events have been held and will continue to be held without the Event Host being present. Life happens...Oh, wait, this is an even bigger change than the time limit. Until now, the owner didn't have to attend for the event to be legitimate. Now if the owner doesn't show up, it doesn't count as an event? If he leaves early, is someone supposed to report it to the reviewer?…
If a cacher has a concern about how an event was hosted, it should be reported to Groundspeak at http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=request. Refereeing cacher disputes is not in a Reviewer’s job description.
Cachers don’t need to parse the Guidelines looking only black and white. There are lots of shades of color in between that can be filled in with just a touch of the creativity individual cachers bring to the game.
-
The slam dunk way to have a flash mob published will include something along the lines of "come join us for coffee and prizes at the posted coordinates between 0900 and 0930. From there, we will quickly travel to Waypoint A for a flashmob where we will sing a medley from "The Sound of Music."[Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but from the discussion and the help page, I don't see a problem with a flashmob event where the flashmob, including the event organizer, comes and goes in 2 minutes. As far as I can see, the new rules only say that someone showing up 28 minutes later has to be allowed to log that they attended even though they didn't make it in time to flash with the mob. I'm I misreading something?
-
I'm sure it has happened and will continue to happen.I'd guess that those 30 minutes would be filled with lively conversation, introductions, sharing of caching stories, and perhaps some other banter about the game.
The way this thread has been going, I can easily imagine 30 minutes spent with everyone complaining bitterly about Groundspeak rules.
-
Yes. That's why I used the word may. Conversely, there have been CITOs for instance, where cachers met at the posted coordinates, the Land Manager took the group to an isolated area for removal of invasive plant species, and late comers couldn't find the event. The situation will vary by CITO location and type of service project. The bare minimum for a CITO is to provide posted coordinates and a start time and end time that are at least 60 minutes apart. No signature of a log is required.
I've been to CITO events where the organizer left a log and a supply of trash bags at the posted coordinates and then wandered off to help with the cleanup. It really isn't that confusing for late arrivals: sign the log, take a trash bag, and join the others who are already at work.With respect to CITO Events, it may be necessary for someone to be at the posted coordinates for the full hour to check in cachers and to pass out gloves, garbage bags and to assign an area. This is necessary because of the transient nature of CITOs where cachers are expected to disperse to pick up garbage, remove invasive species, plant trees, or perform other community service. -
This is all that is required. The Event page can then say something to the effect of, "after the event, please join us for a hike up Skyline Ridge or a raft trip down the Kenai River. Note that the float trip you referenced included the language "It is not mandatory that you buy passage on the charter rafts to participate in the event."Assume that the owner of the listing for this hypothetical event is present at the coords for at least 30 minutes.
With respect to CITO Events, it may be necessary for someone to be at the posted coordinates for the full hour to check in cachers and to pass out gloves, garbage bags and to assign an area. This is necessary because of the transient nature of CITOs where cachers are expected to disperse to pick up garbage, remove invasive species, plant trees, or perform other community service.
.png)
) and it has never been even found which would be different if it had been. I would say it's toast. 
Since when? If asked, sure. But I don't normally provide any information unless I am asked for it.
Groundspeaks not communicating
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by Greatland Reviewer
I did "do a little research" and saw that Groundspeak edited quite a few of your archive notes for Terms of Use violations. The subsequent Note logs you posted also likely violate the Terms of Use (encrypted or not) and may likely be edited when Groundspeak becomes aware of them.
Cache page logs are supposed to be about cachers' experiences while seeking the cache and Cache Owner notes about maintenance and other things that may affect a cache. A cache page is not supposed to be used as a forum for debate or for posting diatribes against entities or individuals. As posted above the "Contact Us" link in the Help Center is the way to do that through official channels.
I looked for the alleged Reviewer abuse of authority after perusing twenty of your self-archived cache pages dating back to mid-2016 and didn't see anything resembling "over zealous" behavior. One cache page has a Reviewer Note asking "May I request the cache owner verify this cache remains in play?" after a pair of DNF logs that followed a pair of "Found Its" after another cacher threw down a pill bottle replacement. In the meantime, the "Needs Maintenance" attribute stayed lit up on the cache page for two years. On another cache page, there is a Reviewer Note asking "Your cache has been marked as needing maintenance. May I ask you - as the cache owner - to confirm the requested maintenance has been performed?" THREE months after the "Needs Maintenance" log was originally posted. I did not see any Reviewer initiated disabled or archived caches. All I saw was that of the twenty archived caches I checked, eighteen had no Reviewer Notes and two cache pages had simple queries about cache health after issues were raised by other cachers, which is not too different than how I handle caches that appear to be under the weather in the territories I am accountable for. Your Reviewer was simply performing one of his many Volunteer duties as assigned.