Nomex
-
Posts
175 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Nomex
-
-
I'm trying to add to the fun.
So i posted a cache... filled with all sorts of stuff.
But then i got a msg for a "volunteer" that said it was too close to a previous cache.
The previous cache is YEARS old... posted in like 2013.
How can i validate my cache without this "volunteer." in my way?
regards,
dan.
In addition to Keystone's guidance, I'll add that you would have had to ignore the following warning during the submission process (i.e. at the planning map stage):
That location is unavailable. Please select a location that's outside of a red circle.
If you see a warning like this during the submission process, it's very unlikely that your Listing will get Published.
-
I need to run a couple of existing scripts against alamoguls account and see how they do. I was worried his finds could time out or storage out my script. I suspect I can improve it a bit storage-wise but at the cost of more time. I wonder how GS will treat scripts that cannot check because the user has too many finds.
In the case of the challenge cache described above, a check for alamogul's account should not take too long as he has found so many caches of all types and of various D/T-levels. As here only one solution and not all are required, it is not too hard to come up with one.
The hard cases are the borderline cases between cacher fulfills the challenge and does not fulfill it.
Actually, Alamogul has issues with access on the site due to his high numbers. He's submitted a couple of fairly basic Challenges and had problems accessing the external link codes to put on his Listing pages for the required PGC. A couple of his buddies, with lower numbers checked, and said, no problem here. I found it kind of humorous. Him, not so much
-
As mentioned in another thread, we now have a limit on latitude/longitude challenges. I've had a couple of my proposed challenges also denied for having finds within specific degrees and/or combination latitude/longitude, on the basis, first, that it could be seen as a user-defined polygon; then after a lengthy defense of why that's not the case, and finds within a lat/lon are virtually identical to finds with a country or state (property lookup, no calculations, no polygons), it appears that the limitation is now explicitly confined to "geographic areas: countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent)" or in my case worded as"[denied because] finds would need to be within an area that is other than a recognized geographic map/country/province/regional boundary"
That's odd -- a brand-new challenge that requires caches be found above and below certain latitudes was just published this weekend in my area.
Archived (as I didn't see a way to salvage it), after an alert Reviewer who shall remain nameless, alerted me of further clarification on the "user defined polygon" restriction.
Moving along....nothing to see here.
-
Here is a link to the article --
http://www.ktvu.com/news/169051221-story
You should also look at the Fairfield PD Twitter feed.
I believe this is the cache in question. Even if not, this cache should be removed so the same thing doesn't happen again, and the review guidelines, if they do not already, should be updated to prohibit placing caches near military bases, police stations, and similar sensitive locations.
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4KR8H_pizza-night
Note that I am primarily a letterboxer, but do do some geocaching. The concern in the letterboxing community is that this sort of event will give both hobbies a black eye, and no one wants that in either hobby. Even if something like this mistakenly makes it thru a review, please both the placer and subsequent finders use a bit of common sense for the sake of both hobbies.
Just so the wrong cache/Cache Owner isn't unnecessarily maligned, the link to the above cache is NOT the correct one. The cache owner of the cache involved in the incident has already Archived the Listing. For the record, the cache involved was not on the Base.
-
Quick question for any Reviewer watching this: Is it possible to lock the challenge cache requirements to prevent cache owners from changing the requirements after a challeng cache is posted. We had the problem in my area where a CO changed the challenge requirements after publication to prevent someone from qualifing. Thanks in advance.
No, or at least not in the way you are probably thinking. Locking a Listing page, locks the entire page, making edits impossible, and preventing Users from logging anything on the page.
A workaround would be to copy the text of the Description and saving it to one of the one or two Notes on the page that are automatically deleted/archived from the Listing page at the time of Publication.
In most cases, this sort of behavior gets reported by the Community, particularly from those folks that have been working on the Challenge, and feel as though the rug has been pulled out from under them. I've only dealt with a situation like this once, in our pre-moratorium world, and the conversation I had with the CCO resulted in the Listing getting Archived and resubmitted with the new Logging Requirements.
I don't see a lot of disagreements of this sort in my area.
-
Not surprising, but no record in the database of any sort for those coordinates. Looks like a keepsake someone picked up at a gift shop. Too bad they decided it was a good idea to deface our Parks
In terms of vandalism, I'd put it right up there with the brilliance of Glenn Taylor, David Hall and Casey Nocket. -
Some reviewers have given us a little more insight into the actual problems, so I'd like to talk about those issues.
These are in response to my comment to a list ChileHead gave as examples that would be eliminated by requiring a checker. My comment was that they seemed so obvious that a reviewer would spot the problem immediately and take almost no time sending a response. So I'm commenting in the context of requirements that all rational parties -- specifically the reviewer and the person handling appeals -- would immediately see are untenable. I think these cases should be quickly handled at the expense of friendliness since the implication from ChileHead is that these types of requirements are the bulk of the problem.
It could be that the bulk of the problem are examples more subtle than this, but I don't know whether that's true, so I can't comment on that.
That is rarely how it goes. It starts that way, and then turns into a lot of email back and forth. Often followed by appeals.
When it becomes a back and forth, I think you've gone past reviewing into tutoring. That's great for other types of caches, but, as you've discovered, it doesn't scale for challenge caches. For challenge caches, the rejection letter should point to the guidelines and some places to get help. That's essentially what the checker requirement has done: force CCOs to go to project-gc for help. I suggest instead of requiring a checker and pushing it all on project-gc, the guidelines be more open: still including project-gc as an option since a checker can help sort out problems and otherwise bring clarity, but also having a new GS forum where new challenge cache ideas are discussed, including requirements that can't be confirmed by a checker, but are nevertheless sufficiently verifiable.
This helps you reduce the workload even on challenge caches that can be checked with a checker but are otherwise problematic in a way that would still lead to that same back and forth.
Why? How often do people appeal such obvious problems?ROFL! The fact that this thread has reached 11 pages should be evidence that it's a lot.
Can you point to a post where anyone's pushing for caches with obvious problems? I think the issues being discussed in these now 13 pages are entirely different.
Seriously, you'd be surprised how often cache owners ignore the guidelines and say "But it's a great cache. Can you make an exception?"
I'm sure people ask for exceptions for all kinds of caches, so I assume GS is already prepared to handle the ones that simply appeal a clear cut reviewer decision. If not, here's the key: Send back "No, I can't make an exception."
I don't know how fast you can type a response, but 20 seconds? I just checked, and I can average about 50 words per minute. So tell me, would you be satisfied with a 20 second response from Appeals, amounting to about 15-20 words in length? Just a wild guess, but I think most people would consider that rather abrupt, if not downright rude. Of course, if everyone was as congenial as you, and just accepted a two letter response of "NO", then it would go much faster.
I don't know what would satisfy me since I would never submit a challenge cache involving finding caches with my dog, let alone appeal its rejection. I've read the guidelines. So I'm not too concerned about how satisfied someone is when they violate the guidelines then appeal after the submission is rejected for that reason. And I don't think you should be too concerned, either, and I certainly don't think it's worth you spending more that 20 seconds on it.
Sure, they might consider it abrupt and even rude, but it's kinda rude to submit a challenge cache without reading the guidelines. How pleasant can you be? And, after all, won't they consider it just as abrupt and rude if, instead of saying "that requirement can't be confirmed, go here for help", you say, "you don't have a checker, go here for help"?
If they don't accept a no, then they simply need to be straightened out about that. The challenge cache is no longer the issue. I'm sure this already happens for other types of caches, and I'm sure it will continue to happen all the time for people that don't want to have a checker.
10 seconds assumes the only thing you are looking at is the Challenge portion of the Listing. Chances are, there are more issues besides the Challenge portion. ...
Yes, I am speaking only about the parts that are specific to challenge caches since, after all, we're talking about the problems with challenge caches.
... I often had to refer to the Help Center article (and will probably do so in the future), just to make sure I wasn't missing something. ...
Could you explain this more? This thread is about the requirement for a checker, so are you talking about worrying about missing something concerning verification? Or are you talking about more complex issues that wouldn't be solved by requiring a checker anyway?
... As far as "stock answer's" go, if it's not a Proximity issue and a handful of common pitfalls, the vast majority of my notes are specifically crafted for each Listing. 10 seconds? Not even close
The stated problem is that challenge caches take too much reviewer time, so adding a personal touch seems an inappropriate excess in the case of an obvious challenge verification failure. It goes without saying that detailed explanations are much appreciated, but in the case of a verification problem, it immediately crosses the line into tutoring which, as I explained earlier in this note, is a bottomless pit for challenge caches that should be pushed off to other places. After all, with the new guidelines, if the cache doesn't have a checker, that's exactly what you're going to do, anyway, isn't it? What specific crafting can you use when rejecting a listing that lacks a checker?
Have you ever worked any kind of customer support? People would appeal the laws of nature if they only know where to send the complaint to.
Perhaps this attitude is part of the problem: this isn't a customer support issue. This is a club member violating the rules, and then complaining when they're caught.
I'm sorry, but I've reached my character limit on this thread. Hopefully, my brief response will suffice as acknowledgement of your concerns and suggestions. Thank you for your input.
-
I have to admit that this comes as something of a surprise and I don't see how, in this case, requiring the checker will reduce the workload for the reviewer.
Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:
- find 20 caches with a child
- find 10 caches with your dog
- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart
- find 200 caches in cemeteries
- find 10 library caches
- find 50 caches between 6am and noon
Since it would take a reviewer 10 seconds to identify this problem, and 10 more seconds to send his stock answer, there'd have to be a lot of these submitted for it to be a big part of the burden problem.
That assumes that the submitter(s) accept the rejection of the challenge by the reviewer without complaint. From what I gather, there are at least some people in this sport who would complain ...
It assume that it will only take the person handling the appeal 20 seconds to handle it, too. Why? How often do people appeal such obvious problems?
I don't know how fast you can type a response, but 20 seconds? I just checked, and I can average about 50 words per minute. So tell me, would you be satisfied with a 20 second response from Appeals, amounting to about 15-20 words in length? Just a wild guess, but I think most people would consider that rather abrupt, if not downright rude. Of course, if everyone was as congenial as you, and just accepted a two letter response of "NO", then it would go much faster.
-
"This geocache is too easy to have a hint!!" is not useful to users who decrypt manually out in the field, and is an extra unneeded click that reveals nothing to app users.
I remember writing a hint similar to this many years ago, and got shut down by the Reviewer. These days, that doesn't seem to be such a big deal. There are a ton of useless hints on fairly recent listings.
Yep - there's even a thread devoted to "useless hints".
I think "This geocache is too easy to have a hint!!" would be perfect for that thread.
Groundspeak requests Reviewers to remind CO's of the fact that useless hints don't help anyone. It never holds up Publication, but I always post a Note prior to hitting the Publish button as a reminder. Most people comply the second (or maybe 3rd) time around.
-
I have to admit that this comes as something of a surprise and I don't see how, in this case, requiring the checker will reduce the workload for the reviewer.
Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:
- find 20 caches with a child
- find 10 caches with your dog
- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart
- find 200 caches in cemeteries
- find 10 library caches
- find 50 caches between 6am and noon
Since it would take a reviewer 10 seconds to identify this problem, and 10 more seconds to send his stock answer, there'd have to be a lot of these submitted for it to be a big part of the burden problem.
That is rarely how it goes. It starts that way, and then turns into a lot of email back and forth. Often followed by appeals.
10 seconds assumes the only thing you are looking at is the Challenge portion of the Listing. Chances are, there are more issues besides the Challenge portion. I often had to refer to the Help Center article (and will probably do so in the future), just to make sure I wasn't missing something. As far as "stock answer's" go, if it's not a Proximity issue and a handful of common pitfalls, the vast majority of my notes are specifically crafted for each Listing. 10 seconds? Not even close
-
Maybe you'll like this tip then...
Submit a Listing once you have your caches placed. I rarely will answer hypothetical questions posed in emails or any other form of communication. If you want a Review, I'll do it on a Listing page. I don't pre approve concepts. Too many ways to misunderstand or misenterpret issues.
-
The secret is to get the "Needs Archived" log placed on a cache with numerous DNF's and/or "Needs Maintenance" logs, BEFORE someone "helps out" with a replacement log or container. Once the "Needs Archived" log is placed legitimately, as a Community Volunteer Reviewer I can temporarily disable the listing, asking the owner to fix the problem. Should someone toss down a throwdown after that, I can still say "but now the CO needs to decide if they're happy with that -- if so, they can enable their listing." But they rarely do. I can then archive the listing.
Thanks, Keystone. That makes perfect sense. As a reviewer, you can probably take a look at my profile/information and see that I did exactly this yesterday.
Along the same line of thought that Keystone brought up, I see this kind of behavior at an ever increasing frequency. When I see this sort of thing happening on a Listing page, I'll post my usual Archive Note after the traditional 30 day Disable, with the following link to this Help Center article:
Kind of ironically, I had a "throwdown" on one of my own Listings, under my Player account. I ended up Archiving my Listing almost immediately, and contacting the User and told them not to do that again (they're a geo-friend, so I could be a bit more blunt than I usually am). They ended up submitting a Listing under their own account. Problem solved.
Sooo...this isn't meant to be snarky, mind you...but couldn't you have just gone out and done maintenance on your own cache and taken the throwdown away instead of archiving?
Not taken as snarky at all. The cache in question was, what would be described as a "lonely cache", with only a handful of finds over a several year period. My friend described exactly where he looked, which was indeed the right place. It was near a tributary of a nearby river, and my guess is that I didn't place the cache above the high water mark far enough. There were no indications there was an issue prior to his search. Since there were several watchers on the Listing and my Reviewing roll is pretty well known in the community it seemed a bit unseemly to me to accept the replacement while holding others to a higher standard. Archiving and allowing my friend to take over the spot seemed like the most consistent solution.
-
The secret is to get the "Needs Archived" log placed on a cache with numerous DNF's and/or "Needs Maintenance" logs, BEFORE someone "helps out" with a replacement log or container. Once the "Needs Archived" log is placed legitimately, as a Community Volunteer Reviewer I can temporarily disable the listing, asking the owner to fix the problem. Should someone toss down a throwdown after that, I can still say "but now the CO needs to decide if they're happy with that -- if so, they can enable their listing." But they rarely do. I can then archive the listing.
Thanks, Keystone. That makes perfect sense. As a reviewer, you can probably take a look at my profile/information and see that I did exactly this yesterday.
Along the same line of thought that Keystone brought up, I see this kind of behavior at an ever increasing frequency. When I see this sort of thing happening on a Listing page, I'll post my usual Archive Note after the traditional 30 day Disable, with the following link to this Help Center article:
Kind of ironically, I had a "throwdown" on one of my own Listings, under my Player account. I ended up Archiving my Listing almost immediately, and contacting the User and told them not to do that again (they're a geo-friend, so I could be a bit more blunt than I usually am). They ended up submitting a Listing under their own account. Problem solved.
-
It's personal preference from my point of view. You found the cache prior to adoption, so that seems like a legitimate find to me. Kind of depends how you like your stats to look I suppose.
-
So let me ask what would happen for a cache in your reviewing area which is like the cache I have linked to above - here is the link again for convenience
https://www.geocachi...c4-60fd4bfcedc6 ? Last find October 2012, one DNF in Winter 2014 when there was lots of snow and
now suppose that someone wrote a NA in Autumn 2015 before the cache got found again. Would you have disabled the cache based on a single DNF and a NA? Or would you have waited for further evidence? A further DNF at least?
At face value, there is not enough information on the cache page to justify me taking action on it. That's not to say that a Listing like that couldn't require some action. I've seen plenty of examples of caches in restricted areas or private property, where folks are unaware of the situation or ignore it, and cheerfully log Finds. There are many ways to contact a Reviewer and express concerns that may not be visible on the Listing page.
...but feel they have the right to require a verification for each cache in their area that has not been found in a while...
In that case, I would direct them to the following Help Center article:
I found a geocache that needs to be archived.
I can't help you on how people *feel* about their rights to verification without actually visiting the cache site. Not a Reviewer responsibility I'm afraid.
-
I have a related question. I'd appreciate if Keystone or any other reviewer reading this thread could let us know how they would react if the following happened
(1) a cache gets disabled by a reviewer after a NA log
(2) the cache is archived after 2 weeks without reaction by the cache owner
(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order
(4) The owner is still reachable
Will the cache then be removed from the archive? I recently was made aware of a changed formulation of the guidelines that has been new to me, namely that caches that get archived to a lack
of maintenance (a term that seems quite subjective to me - some cachers e.g. think that it is the cache hiders duty to run out to check a cache after each DNF regardless of the circumstances) will not de-archived regardless of in which condition they are at the moment when the request is made. I'm aware of the fact that a new listing can be submitted but that's about the worst solution I can think of.
I more and more get worried about posting DNF logs for caches that are not visited often. My DNF logs hardly ever mean that I have searched at every possible location. Sometimes I leave after 2 minutes or even quicker. Most cachers with 100 finds will search more ambitiously as I do.
I can't speak for Keystone, but I imagine we probably do things kind of similarly.
Some of your assumptions, while may be based on local observations, aren't very relevant to my area:
(2) the cache is archived after 2 weeks without reaction by the cache owner
I typically give 30 days before Archiving. On rare occasions, when the Disabled Listing is blocking a submission that is ready to be Published, and there's no apparent response from the cache owner, I'll shorten it to 2 weeks. That's pretty unusual though.
(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order
The answer depends on who confirmed the cache is still in play. Was it the cache owner? A friend? Some random User with time on their hands? If it's the cache owner, my tendency is to be more lenient with my decision. Some random person, even a friend, taking it upon themselves to speak for the cache owner? No. I must be contacted by the cache owner to verify that they are still active and are willing to maintain their cache.
(4) The owner is still reachable
Reachable in what way? If, in that 30 day window that I give, they don't have the time to post even a simple acknowledgment on their Disabled Listing, that doesn't sound like *reachable* to me.
As stated in the Help Center, Archival is meant to be a permanent situation. When I Disable a Listing, for whatever reason, it means it's pretty much on life support, and requires some attention or a response with a plan to address the issue. That being said, I understand that "life happens", and rushing out to fix a cache isn't always the first option for people. In cases like that, I need to have a conversation with the cache owner.
-
I guess to me the more interesting question is if a reviewer of a multi or mysytry ever finds this cache and the waypoints and finals are not what is published as hidden waypoints what does the reviewer do? That is the CO not trusting the reviewer purposely fudeged the waypoints and final to hide the actual locations. Normal finders would not be aware since they can not see the hidden waypoints but a reviewer can. Has it happened, and if so what did the reviewer do? This is assuming the reviewer was not bought off with a whole box of MilkBones.
I almost always assume an innocent mistake in situations like that (i.e. fat fingering the coordinates, dyslexia, etc.). If it's a Listing I've Reviewed or in my area, I'll contact the cache owner to double check the coordinates. If it's outside my area, I'll let the Local Reviewer know as a courtesy. To be honest, it's usually the "Normal finders" that report these issues to me. Either way, I treat it as a new Review, and proceed as I normally do, to try and get the issue corrected and back into compliance with the spirit of the Guidelines. No Milkbones involved.
-
My last post got me thinking...
To the reviewers: Have you ever physically visited a cache site during the review process if it's close to home/somewhere you happen to be visiting? I know this isn't standard practice, but since reviewers typically review their home region, I'd have to assume this happens occasionally, no?
Only once, and only because it was within walking distance from my home. Knowing that I certainly had an edge on the FTF, both in terms of Publish timing and easy access, I merely went to the site to see how it was hidden. I passed it many times afterwards during my usual walk, and eventually, after a few months, actually signed the log and logged my Find. I'm kind of in a rural area, so most of the time, I have to drive somewhere to find caches. I think there's three now in my immediate area. I haven't bothered finding the other two yet. Giving other folks a chance to log them before me seemed only fair.
I've only had one FTF since I began Reviewing (almost 10 years now), and that was completely unintentional and quite a surprise. The cache was located in a Park/Open Space that requires a permit to enter. I finally got around to arranging for a permit about 6 months after Publication and only a single find on the Listing page. When I got there, the logsheet was completely blank, to my surprise. Turns out the User was fairly new and mistook the nearby Trail Register for the cache, which was actually placed in a bush nearby
It wasn't any big deal, and everyone had a pretty good laugh over it. -
)If you think of human nature, I think it's an easy assumption to make, unfortunately.
Also easy to assume the solution and/or additional waypoint(s) are incorrect or misleading. Sad really
Yet another reason I would want to solve everything I find.
-
How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?
I'm not sure what you're fishing for in that question, but to answer one interpretation, Reviewers are held to a certain Code of Conduct, just like any employee of Groundspeak. To misuse information that is intended to be be confidential would be in violation of that CoC.
Most Multi's in my area don't tend to be to arduous or involve rocket science. In general, I tend to ignore most, but the simplest of Puzzles. My Player account is pretty well known in the area, so it would be pretty obvious if I started to *solve* five star difficulty Puzzles. My wife, on the other hand, is quite capable of it
edit spelling
-
The one I am referring to was not on Milpitas city property.
Just to clarify (since I Reviewed the original cache being referred to), the cache is on the property line between the CoC and the adjacent business. Judging from the maps, it seems like the most reasonable access is through the parking lot behind the CoC (i.e. it looks too narrow between the buildings, and an on-ramp to the freeway and presumably a fence block access on the other sides). I don't think the situation is as clear cut as you and others are portraying it.
I've had to Archive similar placements in which the cache is "bothering the neighbors" and needs to go to avoid unpleasant confrontations. I don't think the CoC will get unpleasant about it, but I think it's reasonable for them to ask.
-
I'm more than happy to support those businesses that buy ad space on the site.
-
Well, I guess I'll let all you guys off the hook.
I'm much more curious about where the approximately 15 miles comes from which you apparently seem to use. I have never encountered that number in anything on event stacking, neither in the knowledge book nor in the guidelines. Is this a number which is chosen individually by each reviewer?
I never said I used a distance, but knowing the Forum culture, I knew that would be the next obvious question. If you would like to discuss Event stacking, you might want to start another thread.
-
How far apart can two events be?
Well, I guess I'll let all you guys off the hook. jellis is annoyed with me because I questioned her Event submission, which I eventually Published after she provided some further explanation (isn't that what the Note to the Reviewer is for?). jellis is a great asset to me and the Community, sometimes letting me know when I've overlooked something on the initial Review of a Listing (usually private property issues that I can't necessarily see on the maps) and I love and respect her dearly for it, but she can be a stickler on the Guidelines at times. I thought it was odd that she submitted an Event that overlaps with a nearby one (~15 miles) without explanation, even though the Guidelines directly address this sort of issue.
On to the "happy ending" part; "j" responded back with an explanation that was pretty much aligned with my thinking on the subject, and the Event was Published (i.e. weekday Event when most people are on their way to work, quick stop to grab coffee and Attend, a unique Souvenir that has limited availability).
Just to summarize...it's very helpful when people use the Note to the Reviewer. It saves a great deal of time. If you suspect there might be an issue, put it in the Note. Otherwise, describing the hiding location, container, or a "thank you" is appreciated.
In terms of vandalism, I'd put it right up there with the brilliance of Glenn Taylor, David Hall and Casey Nocket.
It wasn't any big deal, and everyone had a pretty good laugh over it.
POsted a cache, got rejected
in How do I...?
Posted
I took a looks at the nearby Listing and can't seem to see what you're seeing. Found in March of this year with a quick TFTC, earlier in October of last year with "cache is in good shape". 3 DNF's prior to that, but it seems as though that got worked out in some way.
I'm not sure what to tell you. You ignored a warning on the submission process that your cache was too close. You checked a box on the submission page saying that you read the Guidelines.
Relocating your cache so that it complies with the "stupid rule" is the quickest way to get it Published. But if you'd rather complain, OK.