Sapience Trek

So the reviewer may "judge" that the missing cache could still be replaced by an owner who refuses to log in? Yes.

If there is an obvious trespassing issue and the NA is noticed, it will likely be taken care of right away. If there is a string of DNFs preceded by a consistent string of finds, then it's likely missing and will be disabled when the reviewer has time. Often this will be a week or two after the NA to give the cache owner a chance to respond. For me, this is lower priority than reviewing and answering emails, unless there is a permission issue with the cache. If there is a single NA and one or no DNFs, it will likely be ignored. If there are a few DNFs by newbies around the same time, but a find recently before that, it might be ignored, at least temporarily, to allow the cache owner to respond. Sometimes, as I think you know, people create sock puppets for the sole purpose of posting NA on caches they haven't searched for. Those accounts and the sock puppet owner are likely to be taken less seriously than others. Lots of other ways to review these, it's not scientific. I see you posted a NA about a week ago, and that cache only has a single DNF, not from you. Did you search yourself? There is a note that somebody found a chewed up container near GZ, but that may or may not be the cache. So a single DNF is not likely to get disabled, which is why it's important for those searching to post their DNFs to establish a history. The one you posted a few days ago, also does not have a DNF From you. Did you search yourself? It does have 3 DNFs, and a history of somewhat regular DNFs mixed in with finds. This one will probably have some action taken against it if the owner doesn't respond.

You have the coordinates already. You can always navigate directly to the coordinates without having the cache published on the site while you wait for your reviewer to look at it.

I may have made a bad assumption about which cache, as you have one from last year that had a proximity issue.

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=request Option 9. But your cache is too close as your reviewer said.

Just create a listing with the coordinates but do not send to a reviewer for publishing. This will block the place for 3 months. And just keep posting updates and you can block the place for years it seems. No, reviewers can use judgement and in cases where it appears it's not being worked on, you may lose the location. Well, I'm the interested party that is being blocked for over a year now on an island almost half a mile long. What would you suggest? A year is a long time to wait, but sometimes could happen if there are issues getting a permit or permission, or if construction prevents placement. In your case I see you have a cache that doesn't seem to be to have a proximity issue, but you need to check with your reviewer. There was one that never got submitted and was archived late last year.

Just create a listing with the coordinates but do not send to a reviewer for publishing. This will block the place for 3 months. And just keep posting updates and you can block the place for years it seems. No, reviewers can use judgement and in cases where it appears it's not being worked on, you may lose the location.

There are google map errors that lead to minor problems like this one with cache publication ... and then there are real problems with google map errors.

The real Sapience Trek: (he sometimes can't see houses because of the hair in his eyes)

"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.

I think that while it is understandable while most reviewers use templates that's part of the problem and in particular when someone is not aware that the text which is sent is a template or built from templates and expects the formulation to have been chosen exactly for the concrete case. Template texts are efficient but they never can choose the optimal formulation for every specific case. A template is used as a starting point and tweaked according to the need. So they are almost always chosen exactly for the concrete case and modified as needed. In some cases modification is not needed (such as proximity problems, which are very common.)

We try and choose our words carefully to make sure that they can't be interpreted improperly. Nowhere did your reviewer call you a liar or question your integrity. All they wanted was clarification, which is needed on a large portion of the caches submitted. Most of us use templates in our responses, which we routinely tweak over the years to try and convey as much information as possible, in as few words as possible. If we have too few words, we won't get our meaning across. If we have too many words, the notes won't be completely read or understood. In the balance to be brief and concise, it's possible that sometimes a cache owner may read a reviewer note in the way it was not intended. I know for sure that this is what happened here.

Moved to general discussions since it doesn't belong in "how do I".

There are multiple ways of using google maps and the satellite view. Interestingly, one shows the houses, one does not. It appears that some "catch up" has to happen within the google images before all views of the area show it house free. It's always a good idea to put information in a reviewer note about how the cache is hidden, the land status, especially if you know it recently changed.

One of your newer caches appears right next to a house. The reviewer questioned whether this was correct. As reviewers, we see *A LOT* of coordinate typos, so that is what your reviewer was asking. For some reason, you took this as being accused as lying. Trust me, this was not the case. I would have asked the same thing. If the homes in this area were removed, fine - please say this in a reviewer note during review. That does not reflect what google maps says and removing homes is a very unusual step so I don't blame the reviewer for assuming maps were correct. Another one I assume is in the same area as where the houses were removed, so naturally the reviewer would question that. Don't assume that if they are in the same area the reviewer will remember the details about the houses being removed. It's best to state this up front. Your event was originally submitted with the wrong state. Another unpublished cache was too close to the final of a multi. I see one more that was on some private club land that the reviewer asked you about, but most of your other caches seemed to be published right away. Another 2 times the reviewer questioned the accuracy of the coords based on the map and you then fixed them before publication. I don't see any issues with the reviews here. You seemed upset about the cache near a house. You have to remember that reviewers do not go out and visit the cache sites, they rely on multiple map sources to see where the caches are. If there is something questionable, they are going to ask you about it.

It looks like when you submitted it originally you didn't have the waypoints added via the "add waypoints" function on the site. That is the only way that coordinates can be accurately checked for proximity issues. The reviewer would usually disable it to remove it from the review queue, as caches in a disabled state aren't looked at. When you re-enable the cache, it pops back into the queue so that your reviewer knows to look at it again.

You will need to ask the publishing reviewer. But it's been archived for a while, so that might not happen.

For those broken ones, the cache owner may not know. Post a needs maintenance note. If it's clear they know because of other notes on the cache page, post a needs archived. There's no reason to let these linger for weeks or months. In many cases the cache owner will probably have lost the original image, and their cache likely needs to be archived unless they want to spend the time recreating the image.

Please note that leaving out a few letters in a cuss word and replacing them with "*" is still not appropriate. I edited your original post. Putting in a check to verify a location for proximity against premium and multi/puzzle caches is something that is unlikely to ever be implemented. It would be easily abused as one could determine the hidden final location of a puzzle or multi cache. Before going out it makes sense to do research in an area, find all the puzzles and multis that you can. Yes, you might have to relocate, it happens. And it becomes harder when there are premium caches around. I've hidden over 150 caches, and this still happens to me when I return and type it up. No biggie - an excuse to get outside again and move the cache further down the trail.

Are you referring to the short description? The long description field is much longer.

This is a known problem and has been dealt with by HQ. Closing topic (and removed links)

Who is to define a small business? What's a chain? My family used to have a gourmet food store. Then we had 4 in the same area. Then we had 7 across a couple states. Is it still a small business? Is it a chain? Now my dad has a bakery. Should I be able to post about how great McDuffies short bread is, and that they have the best sandwiches, stop in and say hi to dad after you find the parking lot cache, and pick up some shortbread and a pot pie while you are there? I really don't want to see this sort of thing. As a reviewer, I don't want to have to judge whether a business or small enough to allow advertisements and promotions, or if the product mention is casual and ok, or overly promotional. Having a zero tolerance makes the review process and consistency easier. We'll never get 100% consistency in review of what is acceptable, because we are human, and there are judgement calls.

It helps pay to keep the site running. Geocache listings with product endorsements do not. Go to cnn.com and make comments on their news stories, with links and logos to your favorite product or service. Eventually they will be deleted as being not appropriate. Call the business office at cnn.com and ask to advertise on their site, and they will be happy to take your money in exchange for putting links and logos to your favorite product or service.

Sounds to me like the location in the OP has nothing special about it either - a parking lot which just happens to be next to a place where the OP likes the beer. I don't consider geocaching to be about advertising beer or burgers. If geocaching became that I'd stop reading cache pages at all. I'm glad the commercial guidelines stem this sort of thing. If I want to find a location for the best beer or hamburgers, geocaching.com is not where I'd go to find that. Yelp or google maps and others are much better. Very few people have any desire to see solicitations or product endorsements on cache pages. Even if they were on the cache page, almost nobody would read them unless they were required to solve a puzzle. Now if you want to bring me to the best view of a valley or the falls, or the best hiking trail, or the best gadget cache, I'm all in.

The guidelines are not black and white. They have to be designed to be open enough to allow creativity, and tight enough to effectively communicate. Because reviewers are human (and dogs), we will never get 100% consistency. There is no reason to make generic boring descriptions. I've hidden 165 caches, and the majority of them focus on the cache experience and location, without even a hint of a business name. But I don't hide parking lot caches, so there are no businesses nearby to tempt me to promote.