archiedais

MNFruitcake, If you read the thread you will see I never did any such thing. It was your fellow reviewers that brought this specific cache into the conversation. You should thank them for getting you involved in this, not blame me. I did not read your entire post. I did notice you still left out some correspondence that is applicable. Like the email where I explained that on the satellite view I did not see any houses. I still do not. The picture your fellow reviewers posted is a different view than the one I looked at and is not the most current map, which you stated you were using. Your fellow reviewer Sapience trek was able to figure out there are two views, one with the houses and the newer one without. Since you stated you were using the newest view this meant you did not see any houses and in my view were just trying to be a pain, as you have in the past. I find it interesting that you state that I am the one that wants this to happen in public yet you ignore my private emails to you while posting this here. Your post is off topic, a violation of TOS but reviewers here aren't held to that standard, are they. The thread was about how one attains a preferred status. It had nothing to do with you. I asked specifically if posters could stay on topic. It is your wish, and the wish of your fellow reviewers, to air the details of this hide in public so do not accuse me of doing that. The facts remain the same. I did not post a reviewer note because there are no houses on the satellite view I used, one available on the cache page. I reminded you that there are map changes in the area and I told you the cache was still in place. I even apologized for being unclear in my reviewer note where I said I would move the hide. I do not respond well to threats. I do not appreciate being called a liar. I have apologized to you in private and in public and you have yet to acknowledge that or any wrongdoing on your part. You have failed to publish a cache simply because you do not like the way I talked to you and that in my assessment is biased. You have clearly given "no more trains" far less scrutiny than you have given my caches on club property. That is the very definition of reviewing with a bias. You can ignore the other pertinent emails if you want. You can call me names and threaten me. You can put your edited reviewer notes on a public forum. You can do anything you want and it really doesn't bother me in the least. I don't care if you ever publish a geocache of mine again, that will only hurt the other players. But you don't care about the players, do you? I had hoped that this thread would turn back to a positive light, but once again a reviewer can do nothing but attack and turn this into fight over a geocache that isn't even a part of the game. Too bad you couldn't come here and provide some experienced input regarding the topic the thread was about. Too bad you couldn't come here and provide some constructive advice for others to learn from. Why would you even become a reviewer when you clearly are not interested in helping those that play the game? I was warned that the representatives of Groundspeak have no interest in fairness or the players. I just did not believe it until yesterday. I am done defending myself against the lies, misrepresentation and outright attacks here. This was NEVER about a specific hide. This was just about learning about the unwritten rules regarding the review process. The reviewers here started digging into hidden reviewer notes on my caches and taking this to a personal level. We have had one reviewer admit he has given carte blanche to a CO and we have another who we have seen evidence that he has. But I guess it is easier to attack me than to look in the mirror. So long

Sure, lets start over that is a good idea. First, thanks for being one a very few who have attempted to answer my original question. Your answer makes sense because you actually admit there could be some appearance of preferential treatment, but explain that you feel it is very rare and not consequential. Perhaps I misspoke somewhere along the line, but where did I say anything implying Lets review, and figure out how these examples could be taken as a claim of wide spread conspiracy or how they could be ignored by saying the situation NEVER occurs. I don't feel either case is accurate. I asked about an issue that I and others perceive as real. I stated I felt ONE reviewer put me under greater scrutiny than he put others under. I gave ONE example of what I feel was preferential treatment in a very similar situation to substantiate my claim, but only after I was called out. It was not my intent when starting this thread to give specific examples, and I did not think I would have to defend myself to that degree. We also had, in this thread, one reviewer admit they have given preferential treatment to a cache hider, and said they regretted it and have learned from that mistake. Thanks for your honesty, it is refreshing. I think it has been established that it happens. I think it would be inevitable that it happens, after all we are all human and we all make mistakes. The part that bothers me is how fervently the reviewers in this thread fight the notion that It could possibly happen. Ever. (except the one who admitted to doing it, and I respect that reviewer immensely). I think it has also been shown that it may not be a widespread issue, as you pointed out in your last response. I This more closely resembles how I thought the thread would initially go. As the OP I ask that any further postings be kept constructive and on general terms. I apologize to all for my role in the degradation of the conversation prior to this point.

my original comments were not appropriate.

Manville possum and TDM, I am not sure what you cannot understand. There are no houses here. They were removed years ago and I told the reviewer this many times, including right after the initial response about it on this cache submission. Those conversations were left out of the reviewer notes. They happened via email at the reviewers request. Keystone is aware of this he just has no answer so he chooses to ignore that fact. Whos going to shoot you, A raccoon? The people here must be the same ones who will drive off a cliff because TOMTOM says " turn left". But honey, there is no road. I don't believe you, the map clearly shows a rooooaaaaaa.... splat. Does mocking me make you feel better? I have raised a point and provided support for that point. When nobody is able to rebut that support you resort to mocking me. How mature and classy.

Once again Keystone, you admit and defend this practice. You show your allegiance to a practice of unfairness. THE REVIEWER WAS TOLD THE MAPS HAD CHANGED! MULTIPLE TIMES! I never faulted the reviewer for questioning the placement on the old map. I faulted them for saying they did not believe I hid the cache in that spot when I reminded them yet again about the map changes. I faulted them for failure to publish when it was demonstrated that there were no guidelines broken by this placement. I fault them for not consistently following the guidelines for reviewing geocache placements. I fault them for being as rude as I was, but I take equal blame for that. I didn't know it was against the guidelines to change a cache name. I don't see anything in the new name that would be grounds for archiving the cache. Many caches placed in this area reference the preexisting neighborhoods. How does this name, or changing a name violate the guidelines and justify archival? Please point me to a specific section that describes how the name would eliminate this cache from consideration. It really is amusing how reviewers keep trying to find reasons why I am at fault. The ONLY thing I feel I am guilty of here is perhaps not being as polite as I could have been. Please point out anything I have said or done that violates the guidelines of cache placement or forum rules? It is consistently pointed out that I did not include an original reviewer note regarding the map change, the insinuation being that it is then somehow my fault the cache was denied. Again that is because on my maps the houses were not present AND I knew the reviewer was well aware the houses were gone. Once the reviewer raised the issue I reminded them about it and was then told I was not believed. I have pointed out how personal attacks against me are a violation, no response to that. I have pointed out how parts of the conversation that were private were posted and/or left out of posts and reviewer notes. That is a violation of the forums I moderate and I would guess it is here too though I haven't specifically checked. If it is not a violation it is at least unethical and deceitful. I am curious now how many of these straw man arguments will pop up. I am also curious how long until I get sanctioned or banned. I have not been made aware of any TOS I have violated and will happily apologize if I have broken any rules. The tone and conduct of reviewers here really does send a message that this arrogant attitude is prevalent among reviewers and that players like me are viewed merely as geowaste by the reviewers and Groundspeak, who the reviewers represent. That is sad because I had never felt that to be true until today. I have heard others say it, but I have never felt it before. I cant believe you all defend the practice of following guidelines differently based on your perception of the cache owner. That is clearly not what the guidelines say. Does ANYONE have any legitimate reasons that this cache should have been archived? I am proceeding with an appeal only because of the response I have received here. It is my full expectation that the appeal will be denied as it is clear that Groundspeak, and their representatives value their own egos more than they value fairness and the game they supposedly are working for.

The club acquired that land from the railroad in early 2011. The geocache there was approved in May 2011. If the railroad owned it when the cache was placed, it did not have permission as the railroad wont give permission to anyone for anything. We acquired the land in about April, meaning we probably owned the land when the cache was placed, and I did not give permission for it. Regardless of who owned it, I have not seen a report of who was documented on the reviewer notes as the contact. I am told this is SOP for everyone. Since purchasing the land in 2011, it has been split up three ways. The club retained some, the County claimed some and a private farmer was deeded some. Further contributing to this issue is the fact that the legal description does not match the county plat drawings and the land has never been surveyed. The three of us,(County, Farmer and club) have agreed on arbitrary boundries to settle the confusion without expensive surveying and legal work. This is after all an abandoned railroad bed and not good for much. We use it for parking, the farmer uses it as a rifle range and the county, they just mow it. The trail is actually the left over gravel from the railroad, not an improved trail of any kind. The geocache there is currently on the portion of land the farmer has agreed to maintain, so I no longer have authority over this area. So you see, there is some confusion here and that sort of drives home my point. Was this reviewed with the same standard as my hides here have been? No, I don't believe so. I have not been given any where near this much leeway from this same reviewer on my hides. This also debunks your theory that this could explain, or excuse, the differential review procedures. Nice try though! As for the geocache there now, I don't have any authority but I feel there is no need to archive it. The area is commonly used by the club and the farmer has never had an issue with people there. It is not in a field, just on an old rr bed. It has not had permission in the last five years, so its really no different now. I would hope it is left active.

No I have not. This reviewer has been unresponsive to me in the past. I also really don't believe I would get an honest answer, especially judging by all the attacks here. Remember, I did not start this post asking anything specific regarding any reviewer, or any hide. It was the reviewers responding that went on the offensive. I only asked about the notion that cache COs are scrutinized differently, and how that happens. I was hoping for a general take on the issue and the general take I have felt is that it occurs, is accepted and no one better ask about it or they will be maligned. I really had hoped the responses would be something like "unfortunately, situations sometimes occur where the appearance of favoritism exists. As reviewers we acknowledge that mistakes are sometimes made and we collectively strive to be clear and consistent with the review process. We would welcome any input as to how better to handle these situations so every geocacher feels they are treated fairly". Then, of course, the suggestions could be ignored. The attacks and reviewer dog pile (playing off the earlier dog comments which I have never heard before) suggest to me that many reviewers are aware of the problem and do not wish to change or even acknowledge that a problem, or at least a perception of one, exists. These comments do, in my mind, condone the biased treatment of geocachers and the attacking of anyone who would question an issue central to the game we pay to play. It is a shame that the collective take feels this way because I believe that most reviewers (most geocachers for that matter) are very decent and giving people who expend a lot of time and energy making this game they love possible. Until today I have been proud to be counted as a geocacher. Personally, if I was a reviewer, I would be offended that my fellow reviewers took the approach they did with me when I raised a simple and legitimate question about a widely perceived problem with the game. It would have been the perfect opportunity to demonstrate to all that reviewers are a reasonable group of people striving to do their best. Sadly, that was not the case. If reviewers wish to continue to attack me here, so be it. You wont hurt my feelings. I feel I have defended myself and further attacks will simply demonstrate that I am correct in my assessment of this issue. If you disagree, that's fine with me. Thanks to everyone in this thread who intended to help address an issue. Those few of you out there give me some hope this game will continue to grow and improve. To those who chose to attack, Thanks for your help in demonstrating the problem and thanks for your work reviewing geocaches. I realize it is very difficult and for the most part I feel you all do a very good job. Happy trails and happy geocaching, Clark Emery AKA archiedais

In this case my definition of preferred doesn't mean more experienced, it means they are not subject to the same scrutiny and requirements while placing caches. It would seem that if this reviewer was interested in "working with"( as suggested above) geocachers this would have been a great time to explain the rules and encourage the hider to obtain permission. I guess that didn't happen as the reviewers here surely would have quoted those hidden notes. I was required to do far more than that when hiding on this property, while this new cacher was required to do nothing other than drop a container and hit enable. How is that not preferential treatment?

"I do not believe you hid the cache where you said". Perhaps you choose your words carefully, this reviewer does not, In my opinion. Here is what your reviewer said: It's obvious to me that the intent of the note was that google maps didn't match your description. Your reviewer asked that you confirm what you are seeing is what they are seeing. If you read everything in context, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that you have. If you had read everything in context, and it were directed at you, perhaps you would feel differently. This note came after I had already politely explained that there were no houses in that area. I explained that my map did not show any houses, hence no reviewer comment regarding it. I also refreshed the reviewers memory, politely, that they had published several caches in similar areas. You have not read many of the communications I had with the reviewer as they were left out of the reviewer note. I then see my response left out of the reviewer note and the reviewer follows with I don't believe you... I see no other way to take this. When I read this OUT OF CONTEXT, as you do, I see your point and agree that it did not appear to be insulting. However, that was not the context of this conversation as parts were omitted from the reviewers note. That fact alone raises suspicion for me and fails the aforementioned smell test, in my opinion. While certainly my tone is a bit terse, I feel it is justified regarding this thread. I feel I have been attacked and scrutinized here for asking a question that apparently many are afraid to. At least a few others have agreed, and I am confident many more would agree if not for seeing the attacks I have endured. I NEVER took this to a personal level with any reviewer or specifics regarding the placement of any geocache. I only went that route when defending myself from personal attacks which is by the way a violation of the TOS.It was the reviewers who jumped on, pouring over private, non visable comments on specific hides and specific conversations with reviewers. This comes across as an attack on me and an attempt to discredit me and my feelings that some geocachers are given preferential treatment. This thread has convinced me that this is absolutely true and the attacks on me lead me to believe many reviewers realize it and are defending it. As far as tone with the reviewer, that is a bit unfair of you since, as stated above, the conversations I had with them were not posted to the reviewer notes in their entirety. This to me gives the impression that somebody is engaging in CYA which leads me further to believe that preferential treatment happens. Furthermore, I have apologized to the reviewer for any ill tone and thanked the reviewers many times for their efforts. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe the reviewer of my current pending cache, or any on this thread, have any interest in working with me. Are you insinuating I have tried to do something shady? If so, what have I tried to slip by? I accused the reviewers of nothing until the reviewers in this thread started accusing me, at which point I chose to defend my actions. I simply asked a question for which I have been attacked. A question to which I have heard very little in the way of answers or explanations. I have said that I think it is something that happens, and I have provided an example to which there has been little defense. The claim that preferential treatment does not occur is the claim that doesn't pass the smell test with me. If reviewers were at all concerned with the stench of impropriety or the appearance of favoritism it is my opinion they would address the problem and propose a solution. Instead they just attack me. Side note: I've been wondering for the past day why the North Dakota Retriever Club is located in Minnesota. Are the dogs expected to retrieve the Club and drag it across the border? That's a great question, one I had planned on answering in an upcoming cache page. The cache will probably not be allowed now, as the club is reading this and is upset that what they thought was a good group of people is acting this way toward me. Not to mention my permission is not adequate! I am apparently in better standing with them than with this group. Yay, at least one person will address this. Maps? There would still need to be permission granted and this reviewer has told me that contact info for these hides must be in the reviewer notes. I gather that this did not happen or I assume one of the many reviewers here would have been very eager to post that. If it is the case, feel free to post that information and demonstrate it was not a case inequitable reviewing. blaming the hider for falsely claiming permission? Seems to be a popular approach, but again quite easily demonstrable by any reviewer via the reviewer notes. Post up if that's the case and prove this wasn't bias. An honest mistake? Certainly possible but I haven't seen much owning of mistakes around here. Was the mistake not asking for permission documentation? that's kind of the point of this whole thing. What other possible reason could there be? Wait, I have one. Perhaps there is some bias as to the level of scrutiny specific hiders face. This might very well be an honest mistake but I think it is absurd that not one reviewer can even admit it gives the impression of unfairness at best, and shows evidence of it at worst.

"I do not believe you hid the cache where you said". Perhaps you choose your words carefully, this reviewer does not, In my opinion. This demonstrates how I am being treated as this is the response I got after I attempted to clarify and each point the reviewer raises is one that I pointed out in trying to convince them there are no houses here. I did not mention it initially since my google map preview did not show houses in the area Yes I am sure. I clarified when they raised the question. I pointed out the houses are gone, reminded them that this came up before and reminded them it has come up on other caches. I was responded to with the rather rude response quoted above The event was stated as being an hour long. The reviewer did not like that and wanted me to state it as finishing at 1 as opposed to starting at noon and going for one hour. Big difference. Not a multi, rather a hidden mystery cache. This was a good catch and a good job of reviewing. The private club was mentioned earlier. I am the land manager at that club and authorized to grant permission but was denied without getting someone else involved. A nearby cache, "no more trains" was published by this reviewer on our land with no permission at all. an example of preferred staus where review scrutiny is not the same for all COs. the 2 other mentioned times cords were off they were off very slightly, within the accuracy of GPS. I changed them, but they aren't really ant closer than they were before. Had this reviewer responded as politely as you did, there never would have been an issue. And yet I am accused of being negligent in not posting a note before I submitted. It is my obligation to let them know when there is an unusual circumstance, but how can I if I am able to see the maps with no houses present? I am supposed to know that the reviewer does not know how to work google maps? He allowed for that because he knows they are. I did tell him that MANY times,now and in the past yes, had I not already done so repeatedly, then been responded to by being told he did not believe me. I feel attacked for trying to understand how one person can hide a cache on a property I manage, while I am not allowed to do so without getting another persons consent. I feel attacked for being told I was not believed(what I call being called a liar) when explaining there are no house where there are none. I feel attacked when I simply wish to know how some COs can hide caches under little scrutiny while others are put through , in my opinion, the "wringer". I feel attacked that all of you reviewers here are only interested in digging through hidden conversations to further scrutinize what I have done and attempt to justify an unequal application of the guidelines set forth for geocaching. I have never said I do not make mistakes. I do make them, frequently. I have stated from the beginning this is not intended as an attack on a reviewer. I feel attacked by yall for simply asking a question about an issue that anyone with any sense of fairness can clearly see is present. We are all human and I don't expect reviewers to be mistake free, but for petes sake admit them, address the issues and move on. Thanks for the discussion

Let me tell you what happened the one and only time I gave a hider carte blanche on a hide. So this illustrates what I was asking about. The fact that carte blanche or preferred hiders or whatever term you wish to use does in fact happen. I was only asking how does one attain this status, but I see now that is a touchy subject. Regarding my recent interactions with one reviewer it is important to note that communication between us is done via email, at the reviewers request. Selective emails or portions thereof are then pasted into a reviewer note by the reviewer. I have answered all the reviewers questions regarding the inaccuracy of the Google maps numerous times both in the past and now again during this new cache. This reviewer has all the information requested and still will not publish. Our conversations are not accurately nor fully reflected in the reviewer notes. I understand the concept of reviewing to prevent errors and issues with cache placement mistakes, and I appreciate the reviewers help in getting it right. I do not understand why I am told by the reviewer that "I do not believe you hid the cache where you said" even though they are FULLY aware no houses exist in this area. This was not meant to be a complaint about a particular reviewer. I respect all the reviewers for their contributions, including this reviewer. I was only trying to learn how to streamline the process to save both myself and the reviewer some time. It seems a waste of everyones time to go through the effort of hiding cache and then providing all pertinent information to a reviewer only to be called a liar and receive another round of questions. Thanks to the few who actually tried to give some insight. This thread seems to have deteriorated surprisingly quickly to a tone that I don't think is productive for anyone. I did not intend to start an issue with any particular reviewer, yet that seems to be how many responders on here are taking it. My apologies if my question came across as an attack on any particular reviewer. I was asking an honest question that now seems to be too touchy for the forum so I will exit the thread here. Thank you everyone for the input and thanks for all you do for the geocaching community.

I should also add, since people are looking me up, the reviewer who published my two most recent hides, "Fire tracks" and "NDRC clean up" is NOT the subject of this post. That reviewer has been very fair and very professional regarding my hides.

Yes, I have discussed it with local geocachers. Some have never been asked for proof of permission nor had any questions raised and some have felt as I do, that they are required to jump through an excessive amount of hoops just to publish a straight forward geocache. I am the only one I have ever heard of who wasn't allowed a cache on property I manage because I didn't have permission(from myself) though. I think that is excessive. It is also notable that another geocache was hidden and published by a different CO on this same piece of property, THAT I MANAGE, without my permission, by the same reviewer. I would have given the permission, that's not the point. local geocachers also tell me that some COs are "preferred" and that is where this question stems from. I have never in any way stretched guidelines or even submitted anything even remotely questionable from a guideline (or any other) standpoint. Again, please realize this is not meant to be critical of any reviewer, I just want to know how this is done so that I may become more effective at hiding geocaches. I also am not interested in any type of appeal or reporting of any reviewers. I support them fully and respect their decisions, even though I think I am being unfairly scrutinized.

Is this subject some sort of taboo? I didn't really search too much, maybe I am not allowed to ask about it? I am not taking it personally, I just want to learn. The link really doesn't address my issue. I understand the reviewers are doing their jos and I just want to understand how to help them do it more efficiently. Their time is valuable. They spend a lot of time pouring over my hides and it seems there is a better way I could do this to help streamline the process. My time is also valuable and a smoother submittal process would allow me to create more and better geocaches. It is not my intent to criticize the reviewers. Not the one involved in my situation or any other reviewers. I am grateful for them all and I appreciate their efforts. I just see that the process appears to work differently for different cache hiders and I am wondering how I can do this better. No offense intended!

I know such a thing doesn't officially exist, but unofficially it clearly does. In My area, Minnesota, I have been hassled to death by one reviewer. Everything I have ever had reviewed by that reviewer has been questioned over and over. I even had to get my wife to submit a letter for permission for a hide on my own property! I am a fairly experienced and very responsible adult cacher and have NEVER had any issues in placing or finding geocaches that may have caused any doubt. By contrast, there are many geocaches placed in my area where there is clearly no permission received. Just one typical example are DNA tubes that are stuck to everything on public and private property. Many of them on beacons and in locations that geocaches are not allowed. They are often placed by geocachers who live far away, do not perform maintenance, and do not have someone help maintain hides and who do not remove them when archived. Are these COs being allowed to make these placements or are they just lying to reviewers? Are they submitting false information? Or am I just being targeted? I have no issue with the throw down tubes. If that's what someone wants to hide I am fine with it, as long as the review process is the same. I understand that reviewing is subjective and probably very difficult. I very much appreciate the thankless job reviewers do. I also understand that a reviewer cant be expected to get it right every time. I just don't see why my well thought out caches are such a hassle to get published and others seem to get carte blanche when it comes to the rules. How does one get carte blanche regarding hiding geocaches? Or am I just all wet and everyone gets treated the same?