Search the Community

The average age of all Reviewers* is eight years old. *Many reviewers are dogs.

Of course, there's always the possibility that "the particular reviewer" is correct, and the places elsewhere in the country where such hides/locations are "accepted" have been assigned to a reviewer who is a dog* that's not as good at following directions. There's always the possibility that the issue is a "grey area" within the listing guidelines, and two different reviewers doing their best to interpret the guidelines come to opposite conclusions. That's fine. It happens in our court system. It is why there are appeals courts for lawsuits, and why there is an Appeals process with Geocaching HQ for cache placements. There's always the possibility that there is a published regional guideline in the Policy Wiki, such as dry stone walls in the UK, that isn't followed elsewhere. That's fine. There's always the possibility that a land manager policy leads to different results for the same cache placement in two different locations. There's always the possibility that the cache in the other part of the country was published prior to a guidelines change, and your current reviewer is enforcing the current version of the guidelines. Publication of any prior cache does not serve as precedent for any future caches. But yeah, other than that, reviewers are evil and they love flaunting made-up rules. *Many Reviewers are dogs.

This is a great idea for cache owners, but not for reviewers. 1. The reviewer who published the cache may be retired, or was just covering for a friend on vacation or during a busy period. 2. As noted in the FAQ, correspondence with reviewers should be done by email, not through the message center. 3. The "Needs Archived" log already exists to attract the correct reviewer's attention to a particular cache listing. 4. Many reviewers are dogs. The only thing worse than a "Conversation" with a dog is trying to get an answer from a cat. I agree with pretty much everything here. Especially in the case for someone that lives in an area with multiple reviewers it may be difficult to determine who the reviewer is. I know that there are many places in the world where the reviewer isn't "local" but is one or more people that cover regions that don't have a dedicated reviewer. I have also seen cases where different reviewers prefer a different method of correspondence, but of course that was before the message center was available. I don't know how the username lookup mechanism works, but if reviewers really don't want correspondence using the message center, perhaps the auto-suggest feature should exclude reviewer user names. If I type keysto into the "To" form in the message center, your reviewer username appears 3rd on the list of suggestions. You're right about the Needs Archived log, but there may be other reasons why someone would want to correspond with a reviewer (perhaps to find out about local permission policies in an area that the reviewer covers). There are a quite a few threads in the forums which "Contact your reviewer" is suggested in response to a question. My dog is old and doesn't hear very well, or at least pretends not to hear.

Asking others to maintain a cache for the owner is not an acceptable maintenance plan under the cache maintenance section of the listing guidelines. Accordingly, many reviewers will not publish a cache with this type of language or graphic present. I am one of those reviewers.* And, HQ will back up this approach if appealed. If the language is added post-publication, I suppose I could disable the page and require that it must be fixed to the version I reviewed and published. I can't recall having to deal with that. *Many Reviewers are Dogs.

You said this on another thread. Many geocaching.com reviewers are dogs?? I disagree. Horrible thing to say.

No. I think human reviewers* deserve a 1,000% raise. *Many reviewers are dogs.

Hum this doesn't seem to be true in my area because series of cache got published in random order and sometimes with a delay between them. That happened to me more than once and for no apparent reason. I review caches in the order of how long they've been waiting for their initial review. Assume that ten caches are submitted by ten different owners, each one minute apart, and all in the same reviewer's territory. I open all ten in separate browser tabs, and review them, beginning with the earliest submission. Cache 1 is in a park that requires a permit, and isn't published until 10 days later. Caches 2, 3 and 4 have no issues and are published immediately. Cache 5 has four different issues, so I skip it until I have more time to explain all of them. The owner responds a week later. Caches 6, 7 and 8 have no issues, and I publish them on the spot. Caches 9 and 10 are hidden by two people but they are just 200 feet apart. I publish the one with the earliest GC Code, and deliver the bad news to the other CO, who takes two weeks to find a different spot. Since you don't see all the back and forth on caches 1, 5 and 10, it may appear to you that caches are published in random order. The delay is however long it takes for the listing guideline issue to be addressed. It gets even more complicated when there is an "invisible border" between two reviewers' territories in the same country, province or state. One reviewer may be traveling, so if the same CO submits one cache south of the imaginary dividing line and another cache north of that line, they could be published three days apart even though they are physically one mile apart, and there were no issues with either cache. No system is perfect. Also, many reviewers are dogs.

Explanation: Humans involved. Canines are involved, too. Don't forget that some volunteer reviewers are dogs.

And yet even then Groundspeak could come down on the CO if they show a repeated habit of letting a friend or friends maintain their caches for them. So even in good will, the CO could get a slap on the wrist, or more. They might suggest the CO adopt the cache out to whoever is doing the maintenance. And it may be possible to convince HQ that part of "your maintenance plan" is having another person perform maintenance when necessary, and that may sidestep the issue of not doing your own maintenance as the cache owner. But IANAR, and many reviewers are dogs.

It's worth noting that the two mile limit predated the Geo Art craze by several years. The difference now is that the website code enforces the limit instead of relying on human reviewers* to do so. I appreciate the automation! *Many reviewers are dogs.

No, the CHS is an entirely automated process. Reviewers cannot change an individual cache's health score. We can, and do, offer feedback to HQ about anomalies - contrary to false assertions made elsewhere in this thread. The CHS will never be perfect. It can be, and has been, tweaked to improve its overall performance to approach perfection without ever reaching it. There will always be some false positives where the cache is in place and not in need of any owner maintenance. It takes a reviewer's human eye* to read that string of DNF logs to learn that Cacher A didn't have the right equipment, Cacher B encountered muggles at Ground Zero, and Cacher C ran short on time and could not make it to the top of the cliff to retrieve the cache. There are also lots of false negatives in the CHS. It takes a reviewer's human eye* to read and discard "finds" that are clearly DNF's that were mis-entered, to catch logs that weren't properly backdated ("found last year with X, Y and Z, logging now with my own new account"), etc. Having looked at Cache Health Scores for literally thousands of caches since the feature was introduced, I am not seeing many examples of repeat email reminders for the same cache. Any such example would be an outlier. It is simple enough for the reviewer's human eye* to read the logs, check the owner's record, and make a decision to move on to the next cache without taking any action (disablement, archival). *Many Reviewers are dogs.

You can set notifications for the retract log. I have several set (along with publish logs for Locationless and Virtuals - the virt thing came in handy last year) You'll get the lo itself as email ( A common log is, "oops" ) (I have not seen "woof", but while some reviewers are dogs, many are not). The cache is now retracted (unpublished), so all you'll see get on the cache is Cache is Unpublished

Contact with "The Lily Pad" is quite regular -- several times per month -- and is not limited to the not-so-secret reviewer forum. Just like not all geocachers visit this forum, not all reviewers visit the reviewers forum. So, Geocaching HQ has added other communication tools in addition to that. I don't have authorization to share details, but if you think about the communication channels at a company having 75 "headquarters employees" and 400 "field workers", you could probably put together a list that would be pretty accurate. The communication channels are vastly improved in recent years, but are still not perfect. For one thing, you need to rely on each volunteer to "read the memo" and follow it. Some volunteers are better at this than others. Remember, many reviewers are dogs. Communications from Geocaching HQ do include regular clarifications on cache listing guideline issues. This includes not only issues highlighted through successful appeals, but also through forum discussions and the natural development of the game. For example, guidance on Near Field Communication ("NFC") elements in puzzle caches was issued when this technique became popular. Not every appeal outcome is highlighted. Little value is added by saying that "someone appealed Sapience Trek's denial of a cache on a railroad bridge that was 350 feet away from an existing cache in the neighboring park, and the appeal was denied." There is also no point in highlighting a one-off misunderstanding unless it turns into a trend across multiple reviewers and territories meriting clarification or an update to the guidelines language and Help Center articles. (Look at the "challenge cache logging requirements" for a current example.)

Just curious here-since geocaching started in 2000, that means it's 14 years old. How could you know about geocaching for decades? Unless you find every single cache, you will run into the occasional problem with being too close to a cache you can't see, for whatever reason-be it part of a multi, mystery, PMO, or even a cache that's been approved but not published yet. In my city there has actually been 3, or 5(Can't remember) cachers who attempted to place a cache in the exact same spot to be published at the exact same time for an event that was happening. Now keep in mind that reviewers are volunteers. They have paying jobs, personal lives. They have bad days, just like we do, and they do make mistakes. Maybe the reviewer mis-read the location? And then there are the dogs. Some reviewers are dogs so they may be paying more attention the squirrels that are running the geocaching.com servers. Just be happy there aren't cat reviewers-we'd have way less caches approved.

Every reviewer is mtn-man, and mtn-man is every reviewer. Also, "woof." (Side note: mtn-man's dog is the root origin of the phrase "many reviewers are dogs.") But yeah, each reviewer is unique, and all do their best to follow the guidance given to us in the best interests of the local community and of Geocaching HQ. In this regard, think of us like trial court judges. Different judges can reach different conclusions based on similar facts - it's human nature. That is why there are appellate courts. In our game, Geocaching HQ is the appellate court. When someone appeals one of my decisions, I am always happy for the guidance I receive. Either I'm upheld on appeal - which lets me know I'm "doing it right" - or I am reversed on appeal - which empowers me to do a better job going forward. I'm fine with being reversed, and I think any reviewer you ask would say the same thing. After all, that means there's another cache to be found! If anyone feels that their local reviewer is being too hasty or too harsh on a systematic basis, there is an appeals route for that.

Some reviewers are dogs. But, of course, not all dogs are reviewers. And not all reviewers are dogs. I'm not sure if any reviewers have been abandoned. I wonder if Flask's neighbor's cat have a Facebook page? Hmmmmm...

This famous cache has only received one Cache Health Score email alert. The CO's Owner Maintenance log on November 4th took the cache off the "possibly naughty list," where it had sat for quite some time. It's at that point where the benefits of a reviewer's human eyes* come into play. Without a doubt, the Indiana reviewer knows about the difficulty of the cache, the likelihood of many DNF's, and the likelihood of a "false positive" notification email, even after the CHS takes the difficulty of the cache into account. So, as shown by the cache page, no reviewer action was taken - which seems to be the correct answer. *Many Reviewers are dogs.

The reviewers are becoming more puritanical everyday. IMO, this reviewer is just plain wrong if he or she said "the log MUST be signed to be marked as found". What some reviewers do, however, is to not allow a comment on the cache page like "Email us a photo of the log or the cache in its hiding spot if you can't sign it", because they see this as creating a virtual cache or a potential virtual cache. The guidelines say "For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit." When you tell someone they have the option of sending a photo of the cache, you are telling the reviewer that you may not do maintenace on the cache if the log is missing, full, too wet to write in, etc. You cannot read the reviewer's note, but I can. You should be very, very cautious before tossing the "p" word at a reviewer. I am treating it as an insult, since the reviewer's note essentially asked what you said in your second paragraph. Conduct yourself accordingly in any future posts. In fact, the reviewer cut the cache owner a huge break. No comment at all was made about the ALR on the cache listing: Many reviewers, including myself, would not allow "travel bug prison" language on a cache listing. This is not how "any travel bug hotel" works. In fact, the exact opposite is true. That said, many reviewers are dogs, including the reviewer for Mississippi.

My mentioning the three month period was on account of the "Cache Permanence" section of the listing guidelines. If a cache was published as a multicache, and three weeks later the owner changed their mind and wanted it to be a traditional, the reviewer might cite the Cache Permanence guideline and refuse to publish a new cache at the same spot until the presumptive period of permanence had passed. Not all reviewers would be that way. Many reviewers are dogs, and dogs have poor calendar awareness.

There isn't a hiding slump in my area (which I think is near Yuck's outer limit). We may be talking about the same dog. At least once a week for about the last 3 months I get a new notification of 10 new caches. A very keen hider with a wide caching zone and a sack full of pill bottles. I live in a cache dense zone and had no idea there were so many spots still left around here. But there will likely be a slump once he's finished covering the area, because then there really won't be a place to hide a cache. I too am from the same neck of the woods as Mr. Yuck and am familiar with the cacher and dog in question. I ran into him a couple of weeks ago in a park. Real nice guy. His dog was nice too. I spent a considerable amount of time last winter finding most of his caches along the canal. I enjoyed myself so it's all good to me. I have noticed fewer new caches in WNY while the number of new caches in So. Ontario has not suffered. I agree with Mr. Yuck's analysis that some of the long time cachers have abandoned the game for bar codes. I think another reason is that many of the cool parks in the area are mostly full. Certainly there are areas left but finding them takes work, especially when multis and puzzle caches are factored in. This may prevent newer cachers from placing caches in those area. With most parks full of caches, some newer cachers may not see the need to place more. Just theories, I know... Yes, I was talking about an American Dog, not a Canadian Dog. I don't get ALL the notifications for this Dogs caches, but knowing where Borst lives in respect to me, I'll bet he gets all of them. Some reviewers are Dogs, so it just stands to reason some cache placers are Dogs. America dog: "Woof" Canadian dog: "Woof, eh?"

There isn't a hiding slump in my area (which I think is near Yuck's outer limit). We may be talking about the same dog. At least once a week for about the last 3 months I get a new notification of 10 new caches. A very keen hider with a wide caching zone and a sack full of pill bottles. I live in a cache dense zone and had no idea there were so many spots still left around here. But there will likely be a slump once he's finished covering the area, because then there really won't be a place to hide a cache. I too am from the same neck of the woods as Mr. Yuck and am familiar with the cacher and dog in question. I ran into him a couple of weeks ago in a park. Real nice guy. His dog was nice too. I spent a considerable amount of time last winter finding most of his caches along the canal. I enjoyed myself so it's all good to me. I have noticed fewer new caches in WNY while the number of new caches in So. Ontario has not suffered. I agree with Mr. Yuck's analysis that some of the long time cachers have abandoned the game for bar codes. I think another reason is that many of the cool parks in the area are mostly full. Certainly there are areas left but finding them takes work, especially when multis and puzzle caches are factored in. This may prevent newer cachers from placing caches in those area. With most parks full of caches, some newer cachers may not see the need to place more. Just theories, I know... Yes, I was talking about an American Dog, not a Canadian Dog. I don't get ALL the notifications for this Dogs caches, but knowing where Borst lives in respect to me, I'll bet he gets all of them. Some reviewers are Dogs, so it just stands to reason some cache placers are Dogs.

It didn't make sense to me then or now, but that forest service road is closed for winter anyway. I let another geocacher adopt two more listings I had up there on Cliff Mountain, but now geocaches camn only be placed there with a special use permit for $59 per year. I hope that reviewer is more popular in your area. I have asked our other reviewer for a coordinates check to get around him in the past. As much as I have enjoyed placing quality hides in the past, I'm just not so much interested in placing anymore hides. I keep forgetting about that NF permit fee. It's a shame they still have it. I've not run across it; I'm happy to get a permit to place a cache in a given park, in fact I just went through the process for two earthcaches in two different parks out my way. But I wouldn't hide any caches in an area that required a fee. I've had no issues with either of our reviewers. As far as their local reputation, it's apparently pretty good. There was a thread on the GCHR facebook page last year on whether anyone knew who the reviewer was. I cracked a joke referencing Keystone's perennial quote that "some reviewers are dogs." I learned very quickly that not everyone is a forum regular, as people thought I was calling the reviewer names, and that went over like a fart in church. Anyway -- we're off topic here, so I'll stop with the tangent. On the original subject, I too have seen plenty of long distance multis, including ones in different cities and some in different countries; I will reinforce what others have said, reviewer involvement is the key to approval. Which is really true for any cache, but the more of an outlier the cache is, the more you need to be prepared to sell it when it's under review.

Thank you for your polite response to my rather pointed post, made in defense of forum discussion participants. I know personally about the frustration of visiting a country and not being able to score a cache find. In my case, it involved being on a group tour and staring out the window as we drove past geocaches on our way to destinations where there were no caches within walking distance. I hope you have a great cruise and enjoy fun and fellowship with the other geocachers onboard. You have the right attitude: it's about the experience, not the smiley. There will always be examples where reviewers miss one of the many fine points of reviewing caches, such as the guidance given to us about "cruise caches." Anyone can have a bad day and forget a piece of that guidance; I'm sure I have. Also, many reviewers are dogs.

Your stage 2 coordinates are correctly entered in the database as a hidden physical additional waypoint, and that waypoint hasn't been edited since publication. It appears to be human error* and hopefully the reviewer will archive the other cache in light of the close distance. If it was 480 feet away, the best course would be to let it slide. *Many reviewers are dogs.

I just tested. The website shows a warning if you create a cache listing that's too close to another physical cache or stage (similar to what's in your screenshot), but it doesn't stop you from doing so or saving the changes. I don't want to do this next part now, but I assume it will also allow you to submit it for review. At that point, it's up to the reviewer to catch the issue. As Keystone always points out, some reviewers are dogs, so it's understandable that they may sometimes make a mistake and miss the proximity issue.