MoonPie Mafia
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MoonPie Mafia
-
-
Both accounts signed out on firefox, signed in under MP account, goes to MPM account information when attempting to edit.
Something is not right.
-
Why u remove my cache, WE FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YESTERDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! my sister tried to get it but she was to afraid and then a spider was there so we grabbed a stick and it got pushed back and we had nothing to get it with so I'm relogging and don't remove it!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, the joy of cache ownership.
-
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?
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.
-
I recall coming across a Reviewer's profile page where the Bio section included something along the lines of "Don't submit coordinates just to check if they're available". I remember being confused by that, since the Help Center says that we should do just that. I don't recall which Reviewer it was, but it definitely wasn't someone local to my area (near HQ). I may try to find that page again, and see if they described a different way of checking coordinates.
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.
-
Your local reviewer may have a method he or she prefers. The reviewer in my area likes a submittal titled *LZ33 Proximity Check* with all the waypoints set up in the page just like it would be on a regular submittal.
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.
-
And, when you submit a "coordinates check" page, your chosen spot is "reserved" for a reasonable period of time while you are working on your cache (building a custom container, getting permission, designing a complex puzzle, waiting for better weather, etc.). Just be sure to communicate your plans clearly, and post updates if things change.
MoonPie Mafia, there are no conflicts with hidden waypoints for a radius of 1000 feet from the coordinates on the page you submitted.
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.
-
Well, I think you could contact them via the message center. Question is whether they see it or not as they don't get a message email
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.
-
The problem with Basic Members and PMO caches is not to see them... but to log them online, they can't.
Yes we can. All we need is the GC code.
-
Why is that too bad? I'd love to see photos of the things I've waymarked taken 9 or 20 years before I got around to Waymarking the thing.
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.
-
Why is that too bad? I'd love to see photos of the things I've waymarked taken 9 or 20 years before I got around to Waymarking the thing.
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?
-
If you are not using HTML, make sure that you have unchecked the HTML box before the Description.
Edit: Either that or use HTML!
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.
-
We have tried this morning to submit a new waymark about the 1810 Florida rebellion into the first of its kind category. When we enter text into the waymark long description, we include paragraph spacing and formatting. When we look at our waymark on the preview and submit page, what we had formatted very carefully for clarity and readability has been converted into an unreadable block of text with no paragraph breaks.
When we go back to the edit page, the formatting is there, just as we entered it.
Is anyone else getting this error this morning?
On our second attempt at editing the WM, we also got two consecutive 500 errors.
Any one have any insight?
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
-
Like i always had said, being a CO isnt for everyone. This one of those that shouldn't be a CO.
As a CO myself, I take the bad with the good. If you write a negative log on my caches, its going to stay there so people know what kind of cacher you are.
I could not agree more.
-
This same CO went crazy when I logged a NM on a cache that was off by 150 ft. I don't want to deal with him anymore, but I don't want to have to avoid a large area of caching just because of one person. Does anyone know of a way to add caches to my ignore list based on CO? This guy has more than 100 caches out there and I really don't want to have to go through and add each individual cache to the list.
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.
-
Not sure what you're getting at, but I agree.
- But you said yours were, "too difficult to appear on the intro app".
In reality, it's simply that none are traditionals.
In difficulty, three two out of your seven would qualify.
Edited... I take that back, two would, as one's a micro and 1.5 is the limit for those (in difficulty).
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.
-
I agree I didn't sign the log. But when you can't get to the log to sign it what would you do?
Log a DNF because I did not sign the log.
-
Related Link:
I'm assuming you are resubmitting your Archived Traditional cache as a Multi cache. Looking at the maps does not support what you say. I'm assuming that you'll need to provide additional information to support your assertions. Stating that you have permission from the school administrator can't hurt either, but schools are such a sensitive issue, it might not help either.
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.
-
I call this discrimination on INTRO APP users... they are also geocachers, right?
Imagine that people start doing "?" with some key/riddle that only the friends understand? Would you like that?
Imagine a community that uses GC.com for listing their caches, all are "?" with special codes that only they can decode? You couldn´t neither place nor visit any cache within that community. Would you like that?
PMO is, for me, ok to protect your cache from new users but I feel that doing it like you are talking is against the spirit of the game to be open to every user, even tho there are some problems of being like that.
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 had a regular non member cache muggled over the weekend. my premium caches are still doing fine. I mentioned that fact on a local caching page. I had a member tell me paying the Groundspeak membership of $30 was elitist and that every cache should be open to everybody to find. I know around my area about 50% of the regular non member caches that had swag or trackables in them are destroyed. seems the premium member caches are always in really good shape and fewer of them are muggled. I have desided all my caches will be premium member caches from now on out.
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.
-
You could just post an NA and let a reviewer take care of it, but there would be no drama for you to feed on.
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.
help with waymark
in General Waymarking Topics
Posted
That is not accurate. The reviewer asked for more information, ripraff refused to make any changes, knowing that decorations are not accepted.