Search the Community

It's nice to hear that Oklahoma will now be following the same guidance given by Groundspeak to reviewers worldwide. There are many details involved in cache reviewing and it's easy to miss a memo. Consistency is a good thing, but if humans* are involved, that won't occur all the time. *Many reviewers are dogs. They aren't consistent, either.

I heard that your reviewer is a doorknob. You are mistaken, the moderators may have given you a time out from the forums, but the reviewers have not. Some reviewers are moderators, but wear a different hat for that task. Some reviewers are dogs and just sit around eating milk bones and chasing the mailman.

Each reviewer will have a different practice. Some review under the same account as their player name. Look at mtn-man's find count. Most have separate accounts. Of those, some reviewers have zero finds, preferring to keep all their personal geocaching history on their player account. Some reviewers will log events or other caches relating in some way to their volunteer work. For example, the only cache I've logged under my reviewer account is Groundspeak Headquarters, though I have more than 4500 finds on my player account. And, of course, many reviewers are dogs.

Some reviewers are dogs.... some may enjoy wine.

I would suggest the fact that they publish them knowing what's involved, and they know people log them as such is an implicit endorsement. Contrast that with the fact that webcam caches which are being logged by people taking selfies on their phones get archived, because GS disapprove of that practice. Well, in my experience, they publish a lot of things. Where is keystone when a "most reviewers are dogs" reference is needed? Groundspeak indeed do clamp down on bogus logging of virtuals, that's true.

Many reviewers are dogs. And many don't live in the States.

Many reviewers are dogs.

1. Challenge Cache guidelines have evolved over time. 2. Many reviewers are dogs. That's true. "Cache is inside a library" is not verifiable as a challenge criterion. "Attribute is present" would be. So would "has the word Library in the cache name" but that would also pick up a cache way out in the woods that's called "Backwoods Library Book Exchange."

In my review territory, nobody can publish a power trail or add to a power trail with a statement on the cache listing saying "help me out with maintenance by replacing any missing containers" or similar text. That is not an acceptable maintenance plan. Geocaching HQ has confirmed that I was correct to require the owner to maintain their own caches instead of inviting the community to do the work for them. So, I then look to make sure that the owner of the power trail lives close enough to all caches along the power trail so that the entire trail is within their "maintainable distance." Not every reviewer approaches the issue this way, but many do. Also, many reviewers are dogs.

So a dog needs to be at least two years old before it can have an account. That's 14 people years. At least that is the standard for becoming a volunteer cache reviewer. Many reviewers are dogs.

It's probably a rogue reviewer who doesn't like the idea of a cache hidden on a fire hydrant. Many reviewers are dogs.

I see that the OP's cache has been published by British Columbia's newest reviewer. Awesome same-day service! Many reviewers do the job to get milk bones. Many reviewers are dogs.

I checked your page and you've done everything correctly. If your cache was in my review territory, I'd publish it. Sorry about the long delay. You've enabled your listing as your reviewer instructed, and you wrote your reviewer a direct email after not hearing anything for more than a week. At this point your next step would be to write Geocaching HQ via the Help Center. Use "Appeals" as the category for your message. The Lackeys who coordinate the work done by us as volunteers can then check with your reviewer to make sure everything's OK. For all we know, there's been a car accident, serious illness, etc. Or, maybe your reviewer is just distracted by chasing squirrels. Many reviewers are dogs.

Many reviewers are dogs. Expectations for consistency should be adjusted accordingly.

We're called "volunteer cache reviewers." I thank BrianSnat for linking you to the explanation of how to become a reviewer. Yes. Many reviewers are dogs. We divide the world up geographically for the most part. One or more reviewers will be responsible for a particular country or state. We make judgements based on logs to the cache page and any e-mail reports. If the cache is in place, it is a simple matter to re-enable it. Cache names must be family-friendly and non-commercial, among other things. If the name of a cache violates the listing guidelines, the reviewer will ask the cache owner to select a different name.

My apologies. I didn't read the entire thread before responding. As everyone is aware, most Reviewers are dogs. On the rare occasions human Reviewing is required, I think it's inevitable that inconsistency creeps into the process. In addition, the EC Guidelines have had some significant updates over the past few years (i.e. no photo requirements for instance), which compounds the impression of more inconsistency than actually exists. In contrast, I would characterize the updates over the same time period to the Geocaching Guidelines to be *tweeks* at the most, so I could understand, if a comparison was being made. I've done EC's that require vinegar to demonstrate a concept, yet I would not call it chemistry, per se. I would not put it past the realm of possibilities that a well constructed EC Listing could use such a Logging Requirement to demonstrate some geologic principal. Plus it sounds like the goofy type of fun that I enjoy about the sport. I'd go log it, if it were me

Many of the Groundspeak volunteer Reviewers are dogs. The money goes toward subsidizing their doggy treats. I think you means hamsters and hamster upkeep is not cheap

Many of the Groundspeak volunteer Reviewers are dogs. The money goes toward subsidizing their doggy treats.

I first disclosed the dark secret that "many reviewers are dogs" back in October 2008. You can look it up. It is the best answer whenever explaining inconsistent practices.

It was the video which convinced me that the local reviewer was correct in not publishing the cache. Watch it. There's no fence. There are some weeds, which the CO calls a "scotch broom fence." A tall security fence or concrete wall would make it very clear where the edge of the railroad right-of-way is. Most reviewers are not surveyors or real estate lawyers.* Instead, the Guidelines create a strong presumptive buffer around active railroad tracks so as to avoid trespassing on rights of way. *Many reviewers are dogs.

Neither your maintenance log nor your needs archived log makes it clear that the cache is sitting in your house. Reviewers are awesome, but we're not mind readers. Many reviewers are dogs.

Caches in space are listed by special arrangement with Groundspeak, and are reviewed on a case by case basis. Questions about caches in space can be addressed to the volunteer cache reviewer for that territory, Sirius. (Many reviewers are dogs, and Sirius is no exception.) One of the foregoing statements is true. Siriusly.

Sometimes mistakes happen, and caches get retracted. The very existence of the "retract listing" log type is an homage to the fact that volunteer cache reviewers are human. Well, except for the ones that are not. Many reviewers are dogs.

Many reviewers are dogs.

I would think that such an issue, if ever presented, would be caught during the review process or dealt with by the reviewer post-publication in response to a complaint from the "spoiled" cache's owner. That's why listings aren't reviewed by a computer program, but rather by humans. (Of couse, many reviewers are dogs, but they'd probably spot this, too.)