Search the Community

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.

A 2006 DeLorme Challenge predates the tightening of the guidelines in 2011. The reviewer at the time may have felt that there was a good reason to make an exception. Also, many reviewers are dogs.

You can get the desired feedback by submitting a coordinate check page to your reviewer. No, it's not instantaneous, but it safeguards against people gaming the system. A significant portion of the geocaching community wishes that Geocaching HQ would do MORE to clamp down on "cheaters," rather than implementing features that would facilitate cheating. I was the reviewer for the earliest publicly known example of battleshipping. I did not want to be an accessory to cheating. So, when the people hiding caches within a two mile radius of an impossibly difficult puzzle cache scored a "hit" (their cache was less than 528 feet from the puzzle final), I published their cache anyways. That's the value of the human factor.* *Many reviewers are dogs.

Some reviewers are dogs. They don't read very well - so sometimes they mess up on the guidelines. And if you send them dog biscuits, your event may be published and not retracted. Or maybe a human saw your 2016 event that was published by a dog reviewer and retracted it, but they didn't catch the 2018 one. Seriously, though - you aren't going to get an answer here in the forum. We can speculate, but I highly doubt your area reviewer is going to come on and explain what happened.

The property in question is a dog club. Many reviewers are dogs. Quod erat demonstrandum, res ipsa loquitur and all that. 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?

1. Appeals are handled by paid staff ("Lackeys") at Geocaching HQ, not by volunteers. When you appeal you are not just asking a second volunteer for their opinion; you are going to headquarters. 2. No cache serves as precedent for any other. Each cache listing is unique, and reviewers are empowered to exercise their judgment. Some reviewers come out on different sides of the same line. And, many reviewers are dogs. 3. Think of it this way: did you ever get a speeding ticket when it seemed like everyone else on the highway was going the same speed or even faster? Try telling the cop that it's inappropriate for him to ticket you while letting other speeders drive on down the highway. Odds are, this argument will not make him rip up the ticket.

Some random, unofficial observations: 1. There will always be a percentage of successful appeals due to an individual reviewer not having "read the memo" on some obscure point of guideline interpretation. We are always happy to be corrected in those cases, as it means a cache will be published and the reviewer will always remember the obscure detail in the future. 2. Over the years, the percentage of successful appeals has likely decreased. This is due in no small part to the work of the Lackeys at Geocaching HQ who are responsible for guiding the efforts of the volunteer cache reviewers. The odds of reviewers being "off the reservation" are lower now than in 2003, due to better communication and coordination. That said, it is impossible to get every single reviewer ruling exactly the same way on every single listing guideline -- and that's fine. Remember, many reviewers are dogs. If a dog crosses the invisible fence, they can expect to get zapped. The Appeals team is our invisible fence. 3. On "judgment call" issues, like whether to publish an event on only 11 days notice or whether to grant an exception to the cache saturation guideline for a new cache that's 500 feet from an old one, Appeals will rarely overrule the local reviewer's judgment. There needs to be some sort of demonstrable error in judgment or misapplication of a guideline.

Good question. In theory, it makes sense that there could be a seasonal deviation in the number of emails that a reviewer receives. So I'll allow answers based on season. On the other hand, since many reviewers are dogs, and most of the dogs I've met don't seem to particularly care what season it is, nor do most dogs understand what a "week" is, I'm not sure that either your question or my question are valid.

In addition, the Cache Health Score algorithm cannot distinguish between legit "found it" logs and "nonsense" logs such as the entries described. So, the caches may not come to a Community Volunteer Reviewer's attention for action as quickly as they should. There are false negatives in the Cache Health Score as well as the false positives that are the source of frequent complaints. That is why the human touch* of a Reviewer is still needed when deciding whether to take action. *Many Reviewers are dogs.

I have heard some Reviewers are dogs.....some cachers are dogs as well. Did you look at the avatar of each of those cachers? You may find your answer there.

I suppose it should be pointed out that some reviewers are dogs. I'm sure they have accounts for their GeoHuman...

Many of the best reviewers are dogs. Dogs cannot be influenced by flattery or bribes over the internet. In the flesh, yes - most dogs are suckers for a friendly, "good boy!" (and milkbone). Human reviewers are more subject to over-the-net influences, fulsome praise (and Paypal). Reviewing being an internet job, dogs have just shown themselves to be more reliable. I expect the remaining human reviewers will be phased out over time.* *I confess, I have many unmet expectations. For example...where's the Kenyan money I've been promised? when is Vinny going to send the Secrets of Successful Pro Geocachers (only $19.95?) . .

From the OP it appears that the reviewer disabled the listing because it needed an owner maintenance check. Once the owner checks the cache and says it's still there, then ordinarily they re-enable the listing and the reviewer's job is done. The "Cache Maintenance" guideline has been enforced with successful results (an owner check). Disable a cache simply because it's too hard? Only two types of reviewers would do that. The first is a Rogue Reviewer. The second type is a Dog. Many reviewers are Dogs. Dogs are unpredictable and sometimes stray outside the guidelines. Groundspeak is trying to install electronic fences to curb this behavior.

For years I've thought it impossible to make my colleague palmetto look any more awesome than she already is, but perhaps today I've succeeded. "Many reviewers are dogs, but only the Florida reviewers are psychic."

Option 2 raises the issue of "cache churning." If your reviewer is in a bad mood, they may make you wait two months before letting you list a new cache in the same area as a cache page you just archived. See the "Cache Permanence" section of the listing guidelines. Footnotes: 1. I am usually in a bad mood. 2. Many reviewers are dogs. Dog moods are difficult to predict, and are subject to change.

That may have been true in the past. Personally, I no longer grant exceptions on this basis. I stopped doing that after the restriction on "power trails" was written out of the guidelines. I figure that, if I must say yes to a cache that's 529 feet from its neighbor, I should be able to say no to a cache that's 527 feet from its neighbor. (But I do give one-time only exceptions if it's a few feet shy, as a means of educating the cache owner about the distance limitation.) It was in Pennsylvania, and that Reviewer was me. Still a good example of why humans* should be involved in reviewing caches, rather than robots. *Many Reviewers are dogs.

While it's possible that a misplaced "Needs Maintenance" log may contribute to a low cache health score, perhaps ultimately leading to an automated reminder email being sent to the cache owner, the trained eye of a Community Volunteer Reviewer adds a human element.* The Reviewer would read the logs, learn that the NM was placed in error, and take that fact into account when deciding whether any action against the cache was warranted. The same is true for "Needs Archived" logs. I have a standard response template for "Needs Archived" logs that should have been either a "DNF" or "Needs Maintenance" log. I use it weekly. *Many Reviewers are Dogs.

Besides, some reviewers are dogs, and there are places that allow geocaches but don't allow dogs (even on leash).

People convert traditionals to offset caches for two primary reasons: 1. The Cache Owner was informed of an issue under the Cache Saturation guideline pre-publication, and "fixed" the problem by moving the coordinates 100 feet, waiting for the cache to be published, and then editing the description to add the offset. 2. The Cache Owner hears feedback from early finders that the coordinates are off, and "fixes" the issue by adding an offset to the cache description -- either because they know the offset will cause a guidelines issue, or because they don't know how to use the "update coordinates" log type. In addition, it's possible that a reviewer could have published a traditional cache that had offset language embedded in the description pre-publication. This is especially likely if the offset is buried halfway down the cache description after a lengthy history of the town where the cache is hidden. Remember, many reviewers are dogs, and dogs have very short OOOH! SQUIRREL!

This. For completeness, here's the relevant portion of the guidelines (section II-1-4): If you're aware of any cache listings that appear to violate the guideline against agendas, feel free to point them out to a reviewer. Many reviewers are dogs, so they may have missed that a cache listing had an agenda. Beyond that point, I'm going to stay out of the discussion. I'm a Canadian who's too far removed from the current situation in the US to be able to adequately discuss it.

We don't hide the caches, take the coordinates or test the coordinates. We do the best we can with what rolls across our doorsteps. Some of it ain't pretty. It is an art, not just a science, to sniff out cache placements with bad coordinates (whether done intentionally or not). I always feel good when I catch a problem with coordinates, and I don't lose any sleep when I miss one. Some reviewers are better at this than others. It doesn't mean we're "inconsistent." Also, many reviewers are dogs. Cut them some slack.

There has to be a joke in there. Which position receives less love? A lawyer and a Groundspeak Reviewer walk into a bar. They see a dog lying in the corner licking himself. The reviewer turns to the lawyer and says, "Boy, I wish I could do that." The lawyer replies, “You’d better try petting him first.” I'm told that some reviewers are dogs

I didn't realize that there were that many caches being archived because they were buried. I wonder how they got published in the first place. I thought "O" was pretty thorough in his reviews. Perhaps you could list some. Maybe I just have not noticed them. I might also suggest you read through the forums to the several times that buried caches been discussed already. Keep in mind that reviewers are not able to physically verify cache locations prior to publication. There is no way of knowing a cache is buried unless something on the cache page suggests this. Often it's something in the encrypted hint, like "dig deep" or "below ground" or "under your feet." OReviewer, like all other reviewers*, will question the caches where there is an obvious reason to do so. The ones that get through will be reported by helpful geocachers, and archived after publication. *Many reviewers are dogs. OReviewer is not. It can be speculated that dogs are superior at sniffing out buried caches.

Assuming that the guardrails in these situations are not located along VA highways or SC highways, please cite the state law or land manager geocaching policy that's been violated. If you can't cite to a law, then please quote the section of the cache listing guidelines that are violated in the situations described in your respective posts. Reviewers don't review for stupidity. There are lots of stupid cache placements. We are issued nose plugs as part of our training kits. Reviewers don't review for safety. There are lots of unsafe cache placements. If Groundspeak retroactively bans unsafe caches, I could start by archiving all the tree climbing caches and it will be awhile before I get around to the guardrail caches. Finally, reviewers aren't lawyers -- we don't research all the federal, state and local laws on every cache we review. To the contrary, many reviewers are dogs.

You know, I'm starting to think this may be the root of many problems. Maybe Groundspeak should look into using parrots instead. They're pretty smart. Or chimps. Yeah, chimps. Thanks for the insight. I understand you not being able to reveal specifics, but I've always wondered what type of communication occurred for this kind of thing. Since many reviewers are dogs, maybe there should be a system of discipline and punishment if reviewers don't read the memos. Like a rap on the nose and a stern "no!".