MoonPie Mafia

That is not accurate. The reviewer asked for more information, ripraff refused to make any changes, knowing that decorations are not accepted.

Both accounts signed out on firefox, signed in under MP account, goes to MPM account information when attempting to edit. Something is not right.

Yes, the joy of cache ownership.

I understand how you feel. I think where some premium members are only required adequate permission the same reviewer would require that I get exquisite permission and provide a contact number. I don't think it's fair either, and because of it I don't think I'll be placing any new geocaches to be approved by one reviewer. I don't have the same problem working with other reviewers, so I agree with you that there are preferred cache hiders that some reviewers favor over others.

When I contacted the reviewer and explained the I was following directions from the help center they responded by asking if I could direct them to the article, so I must assume that they were unaware of it. Another reviewer had told me to keep everything on the cache page so our communication did not get lost in emails. In the future I'm just going to follow the instructions like I have been doing and post in the reviewer note I am requesting a coordinates check but do not submit the cache for review and contact the reviewer. I would have thought a coordinates check for cache saturation would be more common, but I guess not.

Our local reviewer contacted me and it was that I enabled the cache for review instead of contacting them first with the GC code. The way I read the help center article either way would be correct per "3. Either enable the geocache, or email your reviewer with the GC Code." Their point, and I understand, is to keep coordinates checks out of the review queue. Their ALL CAPS RESPONSE just freaked me out a little because I thought a coordinates check was the proper way to ask if the area is open before I waste my time working on a new placement.

Thank you sir for your prompt assistance. I thought I made my intentions very clear on the cache page when I submitted the coordinates check. I recycled that cache page from a coordinates check that may have been too near a mystery cache and the area was not open for a new placement. I'm not sure why the reviewer responded the way they did, but I thought I was following protocol for a new cache placement? I would like to wait a few days to publish my new listing until the snow melts. Hopefully I will get a response from the reviewer, but I would expect them to be fluent in the guidelines and hope that I did not upset them by asking for a coordinates check.

I followed the instructions from the help center, and have used this method in the past to communicate with the cache reviewer. I submitted a coordinates check a few days ago and got this response from the local reviewer today. "Temporarily Disable Listing 01/29/2016 PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT CACHES JUST FOR A COORDINATE CHECK. Contact the reviewer." What gives? From looking at THE ALL CAPS it appears I upsetted the reviewer by creating a cache page to ask if the area is open for a new cache placement.

The last time I posted a NA on a missing cache with several DNF logs within the last year, instead of the volunteer reviewer addressing it the CO posted a armchair maintaince log that they would get around to replacing the cache, as already addressed in a previous armchair maintaince suggesting that the next seeker just replace it with a throwdown. I don't see much point in posting NM or NA if the volunteer reviewer allows armchair maintaince on the cache page.

I prefer the message center but can a earthcache owner really delete your log for sending them your answers that way and not email? Reason I ask is I'm seeing more of this in the logging requirements. "Do not use the message center for communicating with me. Messages will be ignored and your log may be deleted."

I would like to see a new type of virtuals too. Maybe they could be a premium members only feature. I'm a basic member and phone cacher but I would be interested in creating a few virtual geocaches myself.

Yes we can. All we need is the GC code.

I suppose that I'm just into following instructions set in the category. What next, can I just post that I visited a site because I drove by it? Waymarking gets more fun everyday when we make up our own rules. "Visit Instructions: Photos of your visit to the marker are required, but PLEASE, no old vacation photos taken just because it was there!" Sorry. I didn't realize you were talking about one of those old geocache-mentality categories, rather than just a general statement. Yeah, I'd follow the rules on this, like anything else. But it's definitely a silly rule. Just gotta live with it. So do I understand you correctly that visit instructions are just silly rules? WOW! Was that taken out of context! You might want to go back and read the post. "it's definitely a silly rule" == "visit instructions are just silly rules" ??? That was a question. If you feel that visit instructions are silly rules or not. I guess that you and a few others don't agree with visit instructions, it's pefrectly OK to claim you visited a WM before it was ever posted on this site. Most would disagree, and that is why the category managers set standards or visit instructions. Whybother marking is not worth my two cents, you are free to complain about category horders and other things wrong with this game that are runing it. This site is going to be what you make of it. I've had enough of it. It's the politics that have ruined it for me.

I suppose that I'm just into following instructions set in the category. What next, can I just post that I visited a site because I drove by it? Waymarking gets more fun everyday when we make up our own rules. "Visit Instructions: Photos of your visit to the marker are required, but PLEASE, no old vacation photos taken just because it was there!" Sorry. I didn't realize you were talking about one of those old geocache-mentality categories, rather than just a general statement. Yeah, I'd follow the rules on this, like anything else. But it's definitely a silly rule. Just gotta live with it. So do I understand you correctly that visit instructions are just silly rules?

I don't see this HTML box? I have never had this issue come up while submitting waymarks or caches. That was the problem with my cache listings. I had never seem that box before, it must have got added with the new cache submission page a few months ago.

Sounds like the same issue we experienced with some recent geocache listings, but no 500 errors. uh oh It looks like this issue may be confined to this category. I just posted 3 barn quilt waymarks with no formatting issues, but when I tried to resubmit into the First of its kind category, I got the 500 errors, and the block o'text format. I got the block of text format and the link to my source will not add on my last two geocaches. I'm not sure if this is even related or a mistake on my part.

It is true that Taco Bell blocked geocaching.com, but I'm here now posting in this forum. I also have no problems accessing anything else here. I sneaked in a back door through Waymarking.com

I could not agree more.

You don't have to "deal with" anyone, really. Just find the caches and post innocuous "thank you" logs. Save any commentary for the COs with thicker skin and a sense of humor. People used to nag me because I only used TFTC, DNF, ect. Now after having another local geocacher post his bullying on one of my cache pages (which they later deleted) I keep my logs basic with this group of elitist. I understand how the OP feels when a CO has 150+ cache hides in a small area and is the anti-social/rude type.

I'm not exactly clear on why you've decided to nitpick my comment by combing through my profile, but let me assure you that the other people I cache with do not publish their caches under my name. Not attempting to derail your whatever here, but I have followed some of your posts in this thread. My last to published hides, a simple tradational was found 8 min's after it published. The next one was a 1.5/1.5 ? hide, and a week later it was found. Next I plan a multi cache.

Log a DNF because I did not sign the log.

But it was OK the first time for months no one said anything and a handful found it. I just added 2 more. To be on school grounds it'id have to be about 40 or 50 yards east of where they are. Is this one of those "opinion" things depending on who reads it? It looks as if you archived your traditional cache and resubmitted it as a three stage multi cache. I would have to know more about where the other two stages are, but I feel that your reviewer made the correct decision. I don't think you will get the answer you want by posting here in the forum, it sounds like your cache is too close to school property and may attract attention of the school's security.

The spirit of the game is to be free and open? No, here we pay to play and support the private company that provides us a service.

I see premium membership like the AR on your profile. It's not just a basic AR, but it is built on the same platform. You get what you pay for.

No drama here... just doing a community job, i think! Or maybe not... I know of some ownerless illegal geocaches that are being maintained by the community with throwdodns that I would like to report. Do I just give you the GC code and you contact my local reviewer? I think you have a great idea. Now I can report these bad caches and have them archived without getting involved. Thank you cache cop.