Search the Community

COs can get an email generated by a computer algorithm. The algorithm isn't going to cover all cases perfectly. Yours very well could be one of the anomalies. If you know your cache is OK, you can ignore the email. The email (or the computer, actually) do NOT take any action on your cache. Any action - temporarily disabling, etc. - is done by a human, and one that looks at the listing and uses their best judgment. So there is no black mark against your listing that you have to worry about. Oh, but some reviewers are dogs, so maybe the reviewer actions are NOT all done by humans. See this thread on this same issue: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=340313&view=findpost&p=5627411

Some observations: 1. These are private emails, not logs to the cache page. If a maintenance email gets publicized to the local community, that's the cache owner's option. 2. The emails are sent automatically based on an algorithm. No algorithm is perfect, and it cannot fully replace human judgment (by both the cache owner and their reviewer). The algorithm is tweaked from time to time based on community feedback (and especially reviewer feedback, when we see anamolies like barefootjeff's cache). In this case, I'm betting that the odd result was due to the fact that there had only been one find on the cache before the DNF, and the cache had been available for about six weeks. Perhaps in response to the feedback given, the algorithm might give a bit more weight to the D/T ratings for caches like this, and to the cache type, and a bit less to the time between finds and the importance of a single DNF. 3. I don't think any reviewer, and in particular the experienced and community-oriented Australian review team, would have taken action against this cache if barefootjeff continued to do nothing. Again, the value of human judgment. (Note, however, that many reviewers are dogs.) 4. Due to the recent find, I can confirm that the algorithm now regards barefootjeff's cache as being in good shape. (Off topic, everyone should check out that cache listing for an example of a well-designed multicache with a great writeup and photos.) 5. Geocaching HQ recognizes that the algorithm isn't perfect. That's why there are no firm demands or automatic consequences when one of these private emails is sent. Here is part of the text from the automated email, with emphasis added:

1. The quoted cache description was published in 2010. It would have been reviewed under the reviewer's best understanding of the listing guidelines for commercial caches in 2010. The same reviewer, presented with the current description as a new cache submission in 2014, may very well reach a different conclusion. 2. The archived reviewer notes tell me that the reviewer did ask the cache owner to remove commercial content prior to publication. 3. Who knows what edits may have been made to the description post-publication? 4. The publication of any one cache does not serve as precedent for the publication of any other cache. 5. The reviewers have received specific guidance about technology issues like phone app mentions, GPS brand mentions, etc. There has not been any specific guidance about vineyards. 6. Many reviewers are dogs.

Well, reviewers are only human, you know. Except for the ones who are dogs. Many reviewers are dogs. Which would be a reason #5 for using form letters, I suppose. Which does bring a question to my mind. Why aren't any of the reviewers cats? Is it because they are to smart to do the job? Or is it that no one offers them tuna fish? Or is it because they would eat the hamsters? I think it's the litter box smell. Signal is allergic to kitty litter.

Well, reviewers are only human, you know. Except for the ones who are dogs. Many reviewers are dogs. Which would be a reason #5 for using form letters, I suppose. Which does bring a question to my mind. Why aren't any of the reviewers cats? Is it because they are to smart to do the job? Or is it that no one offers them tuna fish? Or is it because they would eat the hamsters?

I think that perhaps you have taken that a bit too far. Or rather, that it's an incomplete answer. Some reviewers are humans. Many reviewers are dogs.

Keeping up with maintenance issues is an entirely optional job for volunteer cache reviewers. Many choose to sweep through disabled caches that have been "temporarily" down for too long. It's pretty easy to do that by running a pocket query for the country or state which returns only disabled caches. Some choose to also look for caches with "needs maintenance" attributes. (Remember, reviewers are not notified when these are logged.) Usually it takes multiple pocket queries for this, and the process is error-prone. These "sweeps" would be less frequent. My last NM sweep was in December 2007. (New cache reviews slow way down for me in the winter months.) Still fewer reviewers sweep through for caches which OUGHT to be disabled or archived, but simply have a bunch of DNF logs and no finds for a long time. I've just started one of those sweeps, which I'll work on for an hour here and an hour there throughout the winter months. At the same time, I'm moving clearly missing trackables out of the cache page inventory and into an "unknown location." If someone is troubled about a cache, and the owner is not responsive to requests, then log a "needs archived." This sends a notice to the responsible reviewer. Responding to these requests is a higher obligation than the voluntary tasks outlined above. Some reviewers rely quite heavily on these logs as the primary means of alerting them to problem caches. So, from the above accounts, POFE is doing a superb job in reviewing caches - which is a *reviewer's* primary role. Whether he/she/it (many reviewers are dogs) chooses to volunteer extra time for existing cache maintenance issues is entirely up to him/her/it.

Most reviewers are happy to help you with "coord checks." We would rather deliver surprising news *before* you hike all over the forest to construct your elaborate multicache or evil puzzle. Your reviewer is mtn-man and I do not know his exact preferences about dealing with these requests (other than he prefers being bribed with milkbones rather than PayPal transfers). Generally, however, many reviewers find it easiest if you do the following: 1. Set up a cache page, clearly marked as a "TEST" page or "COORD CHECK" page within the title, so we don't accidentally publish it. 2. If a multicache, include all the waypoints you'd like for us to check, using the Additional Waypoints tool. 3. Explain what you're asking for, using the cache description and a reviewer note. Again, say that you just want the coords checked. Tell this to your reviewer twice and they will be sure to understand it. (Remember, many reviewers are dogs.) 4. Your reviewer will respond to give you the "all clear" and then your page will hold the spot(s) for a reasonable time while you place the cache. Or, if there is an issue, the reviewer will point this out. ("You need to relocate stage three because it's less than 300 feet from a puzzle cache you haven't solved yet.") 5. Edit your page and re-submit when ready for actual review. (Remember, only the coordinates were reviewed in the preliminary check - don't be surprised if there are other issues noted.) Most reviewers find this method more efficient than receiving the coordinates in an email. We then need to input them into the database in order to run the check. It helps us if you do that work yourself by setting up a cache page.

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. Wow, I wasn't expecting so many comments in this thread already! Thanks fort the feedback, everyone :] Just to clarify, I'm not arguing with the MS reviewer -- in fact, I've complied with everything he told me to change and am waiting for my listing to be reviewed again. I only posted here in an attempt to understand what are and are not official Geocaching rules because this is the first time I've ever heard of or personally experienced a roadblock in trying to publish a cache. I've especially never heard of anything against travel bug hotels. As far as I can tell, they're not even officially recognized by Geocaching in the glossary, its a user-invented thing. My only experience with them has been through several others I've visited around the world, and I've created mine to replicate what's already out there and has worked extremely well for getting trackables where they're trying to go. So I don't understand why someone wouldn't allow a travel bug hotel to be published? Which brings me to a greater point -- the way things are set up now, everything seems to be up to the CO and/or reviewer since they have the power to deny listings and logs. If I've found certain types of caches elsewhere and want to make a similar type, but the reviewer in my area won't allow it, shouldn't I be able to find specific rules for or against something? Otherwise it's just users arbitrarily deciding what's there and what's not? It's confusing. Anyway, hopefully the reviewer and I can work out something so that we can have another nice cache in the area :] You can have a travel bug hotel. You just can't make rules about how people put in or take out trackables. Trackables aren't trade items, and they aren't owned by the cache owner. The goal for trackables is to move, so if someone wants to come along and take out all the trackables in a travel bug hotel and not leave a trackable in return, they can. Once you start telling people to take a trackable and leave a trackable, it becomes what people call a "Travel bug prison", because sometimes trackables will fester in the container because people don't move them along if they don't have anything to trade for it.

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. Wow, I wasn't expecting so many comments in this thread already! Thanks fort the feedback, everyone :] Just to clarify, I'm not arguing with the MS reviewer -- in fact, I've complied with everything he told me to change and am waiting for my listing to be reviewed again. I only posted here in an attempt to understand what are and are not official Geocaching rules because this is the first time I've ever heard of or personally experienced a roadblock in trying to publish a cache. I've especially never heard of anything against travel bug hotels. As far as I can tell, they're not even officially recognized by Geocaching in the glossary, its a user-invented thing. My only experience with them has been through several others I've visited around the world, and I've created mine to replicate what's already out there and has worked extremely well for getting trackables where they're trying to go. So I don't understand why someone wouldn't allow a travel bug hotel to be published? Which brings me to a greater point -- the way things are set up now, everything seems to be up to the CO and/or reviewer since they have the power to deny listings and logs. If I've found certain types of caches elsewhere and want to make a similar type, but the reviewer in my area won't allow it, shouldn't I be able to find specific rules for or against something? Otherwise it's just users arbitrarily deciding what's there and what's not? It's confusing. Anyway, hopefully the reviewer and I can work out something so that we can have another nice cache in the area :]

I've responded to four "coordinate check" inquiries just this week alone, and it's frigid January weather. I'd much rather tell a geocacher the bad news early on before they do all the work, than to disappoint and frustrate them later. So, reviewers are human and the job has lots of areas where we use our discretion and judgment. Some do things one way and others do that thing a different way. Also, many reviewers are dogs.

There's at least one dog with its own account. Plus some of the reviewers are dogs. That's why they work from home - if they worked at geocaching HQ they'd just chase the hamsters that power the servers.

I hate to have to do this, but let's keep on topic to thanking volunteers (for which I am grateful!) To answer a question, the figure of 350 volunteers includes ALL reviewers, moderators, translators, etc. -- there are not 350 volunteer cache reviewers. There are many moderators and translators who perform only that role. Also, many reviewers are dogs.

OK, then I'd have to say your "local" is either pulling your leg or has an active imagination. I don't expect you to defend that statement, so it might be best to invite this "local" of yours to explain what they mean. For me, the notion that there is some "preferred" status will get filed in the same category as "...some Reviewers are dogs", and that HQ Servers are powered by hamsters (i.e. Urban myth).

I believe it's that the servers at Groundspeak are powered by hamsters running in wheels. Once you establish that premise, there's no end to the possible jokes. For a time (I'm not sure if it's still the case), the page that was displayed when the site was undergoing maintenance had a video showing the hamsters undertaking said maintenance. ...and always remember, many reviewers are dogs. And some players are hamsters in frog's clothing. They have been known to leave hamsters as swag.

I believe it's that the servers at Groundspeak are powered by hamsters running in wheels. Once you establish that premise, there's no end to the possible jokes. For a time (I'm not sure if it's still the case), the page that was displayed when the site was undergoing maintenance had a video showing the hamsters undertaking said maintenance. ...and always remember, many reviewers are dogs.

Most of the human reviewers blame the mistakes on the non-human reviewers. Many reviewers are dogs.

Ok, I'll bite-or bark. What's with the "many reviewers are dogs" Is it because you work like dogs and get a lot of angry people or you're barking mad or what...

Many Reviewers are dogs.

Well, reviewers are only human, you know. Except for the ones who are dogs. Many reviewers are dogs. Which would be a reason #5 for using form letters, I suppose. Do some of them wear glasses? Not on your life!!

Well, reviewers are only human, you know. Except for the ones who are dogs. Many reviewers are dogs. Which would be a reason #5 for using form letters, I suppose. Do some of them wear glasses? Some reside in the mountains.

Well, reviewers are only human, you know. Except for the ones who are dogs. Many reviewers are dogs. Which would be a reason #5 for using form letters, I suppose. Do some of them wear glasses?

Well, reviewers are only human, you know. Except for the ones who are dogs. Many reviewers are dogs. Which would be a reason #5 for using form letters, I suppose.

While some reviewers are dogs, they aren't stupid.

Please don't feel badly about your misunderstanding reviewer accounts. It happens so often that I've included an explanation about it on my profile page. You can click on my name, "Keystone," to the left above my avatar picture to go see a reviewer profile. Many other reviewers include similar explanations on their profile. Well, except for the dogs. Many reviewers are dogs.