Search the Community

No, it's not automatic. Caches are reviewed by human* reviewers, who typically publish a cache once it meets the guidelines. *Some reviewers are dogs. Yes, you can request the reviewer to accommodate this as part of the review process. The best way to avoid this is to go through the guidelines ahead of time, since that's what the reviewer will be using to evaluate your listing. Happy caching, and I hope your first hide goes well.

If some Reviewers are dogs is ModBot a robot cat?

I knew that some reviewers are dogs... but ALL reviewers? Wow...

Reviewers can make mistakes, sure, or not be very good reviewers at all. Remember, all reviewers are dogs.

-- Which may include doing nothing, but of course they may choose to recommend that you do something. And as I said above, if you choose not to do anything - because you are certain there is nothing wrong with the cache and it does not require attention - and the reviewer can see that that is the case - then nothing will be done. You know why the reviewer will probably contact the CO in most any case? Because they get nagged by low scoring caches in their dashboard. All of this demonstrates that the CHS does not archive caches. Especially not merely after 30 days of no change! Reviewers choose how to address the situation, and we know that reviewers are dogs. But if they choose not to for whatever reason, they let the little flag sit there, taunting them. That's all it is. That's all that happens. That's what I've gleaned from chatting with some reviewers, and from aaaallll the threads that have talked about this. I won't call it a "nastygram", because it's not. It's a nudge, with tips, that you can interpret, and that we know doesn't go farther than that, itself. You can choose how to address it - or not, if you are 100% absolutely certain there is no problem, and the reviewer(s) also believe there to be no problem, and they are willing to endure seeing that little flag on their end sitting next to your cache listing. And that's another great reason to address a low score. Because you care about your reviewer

Then it's a good thing that the email can't archive caches by itself. That decision is in the hands of human* reviewers, who sometimes just need a note of explanation.** "Post a reviewer note" is potentially something Groundspeak could consider adding to the email. But the email is a prompt for action, aimed at inexperienced who are not acting on their caches. Like many things that experienced cachers repeatedly complain about on the forums, it is not aimed at experienced cachers, who know the difference between a good hide and a hole in the ground. And yet, here we are, again. *Some reviewers are dogs. **Sometimes a dog treat will also work.

Just to clarify in case anyone missed the reference, when discussing subjective reviewer issues Keystone used to use the phrase "some reviewers are dogs." Since he was busy licking himself I think he realized I was throwing him a bone.

They have, and they can. Guaranteeing a T1 cache is truly wheelchair accessible isn't the same as suggesting that something seems wildly inaccurate and misleading, nor that they can suggest in other capacities. As they have. And they don't need to. But they can, if they choose. And, if they can't, if they are disallowed to (which isn't what Keystone said, "If Reviewers are expected to take action..."), then reviewers who have done so in whatever capacity in the past have broken their own guidelines. Ya can't change my position on this which I'll repeat: "We can all [including reviewers] continue to encourage accurate properties for geocache listings, it's not merely on the shoulders of HQ in their advertising and promotions." And reviewers have made suggestions on recommendations during a cache listing review process; not often, but they have. If they are disallowed to do that, then either it's not been made clear [publicly], or in the past that rule has been broken, or it's a new rule, or reviewers can indeed take off their reviewer hat and use other means to encourage accuracy, or reviewers are dogs. ETA: so-as not to extend the thread - Here's my understanding in a nutshell: There is no rule that reviewers cannot choose to recommend a more accurate rating as long the CO still has final word on subjective accuracy they choose to publish. Certain aspects are required (but might get missed, tho that's not the point). But I think if reviewers were disallowed to make any sort of subjective recommendation, we'd have liar caches out the wazoo as people took advantage of intentionally misleading people with false properties (which is different than unintentionally inaccurate). Reviewers are not required/expected to make subjective recommendations, but they're not restricted from doing so. Anyway, all of this is a side topic to the release notes, so yay for being able to click and do immediate searches for desirable DTs!

As mentioned in the updates, the attribute isn't automatically added, and thus the attribute isn't the 'defining property' of a challenge cache, only an indicator. It's up to cache owners to add it (and/or regional reviewers to recommend or choose to enforce it). It may be the latter is intended to be the way of things - in that all challenge caches should be required to have the attribute, but I don't believe that's in writing. And we all know reviewers are dogs, they can make mistakes, and cache owners can edit post-publish as well. So we as cachers can't trust that all challenge caches will always have the attribute. (just like tree climbs, or river wading, or front porch, or ,.......)

Why would they need to hide geocaches to battleship the finals? They could just use the saturation checker without actually submitting any caches for review. This is not the first time this topic has come up. Here is one of Keystone's replies to one of the earlier threads: So, suppose I tell you that your proposed location is 110m northwest of the final coordinates for "Cacher Conundrum," a five-star puzzle cache that only four people have ever solved and logged in the past three years. Armed with that intelligence, you track down the container and sign the log at the same time when you move your cache to a spot that's 162m away. What do I get for being helpful? A flaming email from the CO of "Cacher Conundrum," who also posts to three Facebook groups, and files a complaint with Geocaching HQ that I gave away secret information and ruined the puzzle cache. Having had that happen to us enough times, reviewers nowadays are constrained to be less forthcoming with details. Depending on your reviewer, you may get a hint, like "you are less than 161m from "Cacher Conundrum," GCABCDE, or you may get a hint that you should strongly consider moving to the southeast, or you may not get any guidance at all. So, that's how come. In a world where people hack lab caches and share the final coordinates of puzzle caches in Facebook groups, the inevitable outcome of such a feature would be to spoil every puzzle cache, multicache and Wherigo cache, plus a fair percentage of letterbox hybrid caches. There are people who like placing and finding these cache types. Geocaching.com has chosen not to alienate them by ruining the ability to keep the actual locations a secret. "But all I need is a distance and direction," you might say. So, the cheater simply enters enough coordinates into the planner tool to permit them to hone in on the actual location through triangulation. Think that can't happen? Talk to the travel bug stalkers who watch for drops of trackables in unpublished caches so they can figure out the locations and log a pre-publication "FTF." Talk to the group of cachers who hid traditionals in every conceivable spot within two miles of a 5-star puzzle, knowing they'd eventually "battleship" their way to a hit, and then they could do a scorched earth hunt within that area. I foiled them by publishing their cache even though it was 200 feet away from the puzzle final. Reviewers are smart humans*, you see, and that is better than an automated system. *Many reviewers are dogs.

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

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.

And while some of that comes down to differences between volunteer reviewers, some of it comes down to regional differences. Also, some volunteer reviewers are dogs.

ALL geocache placements require compliance with the cache maintenance section of the Geocache Hiding Guidelines. Posting a GCRM logo/link is a way of saying "I want to rely on others to do maintenance for me," which is not an acceptable maintenance plan. Therefore, Community Volunteer Reviewers do not publish caches that include the GCRM logo/link. If you see a cache page with that logo/link, it was either added post-publication, published before Geocaching HQ got wind of GCRM many years ago, or published in error.* *Many reviewers are dogs.

Please remember that the CHS algorithm has been improved multiple times since the "CHS email that rocked the world" that was sent to barefootjeff in December 2016. One example: The CHS does no longer deteriorates as quickly due to a DNF right after publication. Also, receiving a CHS email reminder does not necessarily lead to a Reviewer taking action against someone's cache if the CO doesn't do anything. The CHS algorithm cannot analyze the contents of a DNF log (adding in "too much poison ivy," "gave up when it started raining," "the mosquitos drove me away" plus 100 other non-actionable DNF phrases, multiplied by all the supported languages, including "mozzies" for the Australians, is a daunting task). That's why the human eyes of a Reviewer* need to check those logs after seeing a cache on a list of unactioned Cache Health Score emails. As CO's ourselves, Reviewers know to discount DNF logs that don't warrant CO action. *Many Reviewers are dogs.

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

So, suppose I tell you that your proposed location is 110m northwest of the final coordinates for "Cacher Conundrum," a five-star puzzle cache that only four people have ever solved and logged in the past three years. Armed with that intelligence, you track down the container and sign the log at the same time when you move your cache to a spot that's 162m away. What do I get for being helpful? A flaming email from the CO of "Cacher Conundrum," who also posts to three Facebook groups, and files a complaint with Geocaching HQ that I gave away secret information and ruined the puzzle cache. Having had that happen to us enough times, reviewers nowadays are constrained to be less forthcoming with details. Depending on your reviewer, you may get a hint, like "you are less than 161m from "Cacher Conundrum," GCABCDE, or you may get a hint that you should strongly consider moving to the southeast, or you may not get any guidance at all. So, that's how come. In a world where people hack lab caches and share the final coordinates of puzzle caches in Facebook groups, the inevitable outcome of such a feature would be to spoil every puzzle cache, multicache and Wherigo cache, plus a fair percentage of letterbox hybrid caches. There are people who like placing and finding these cache types. Geocaching.com has chosen not to alienate them by ruining the ability to keep the actual locations a secret. "But all I need is a distance and direction," you might say. So, the cheater simply enters enough coordinates into the planner tool to permit them to hone in on the actual location through triangulation. Think that can't happen? Talk to the travel bug stalkers who watch for drops of trackables in unpublished caches so they can figure out the locations and log a pre-publication "FTF." Talk to the group of cachers who hid traditionals in every conceivable spot within two miles of a 5-star puzzle, knowing they'd eventually "battleship" their way to a hit, and then they could do a scorched earth hunt within that area. I foiled them by publishing their cache even though it was 200 feet away from the puzzle final. Reviewers are smart humans*, you see, and that is better than an automated system. *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

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.

But a note isn't good enough now to get extra time? 2 weeks? That's all you get as a CO now to address possible issues? I go on vacations longer than 2 weeks and my note to my cache won't garner me any extra time. That seems to me to be an undue onus on a CO, given that type of time frame. I don't know. That's an exception up to the reviewer to grant. Nothing "triggers" the reviewer action except the reviewer. The reviewer decided to disable after 3 weeks with a maintenance flag, likely (since we don't know) brought to their attention by their CHS tool. That's it. It's most possibly the exact same action they would have taken before they had the CHS tool during one of their typical 'sweeps'. Why are we discussing the CHS tool? I don't recall anyone thinking their tool was a problem. I have no idea. The OM would have only addressed the logs posted before it (none of which apparently were a NM). 6 DNFs and a NM alone may well have dropped the health score given other properties. Then again maybe not. A reviewer isn't required to wait until a listing is below the threshold before taking action. Frankly it doesn't matter to me whether the reviewer was prompted by their CHS tool or not. The reviewer decided that 3 weeks with an active maintenance flag warranted a disable. If that's procedure in that region, then go take it to HQ or whoever decides procedure for that region to attempt to have it changed. If that's procedure, then the action was logical and warranted. They simply didn't grant an exception which we think would have been acceptable in this case given the context with past logs. Yep. Sure. Because posting a note after a NM doesn't obligate a reviewer to extend their timeline. They can if they want, but they're not required to. The fact of the matter was that the flag was still active. And if that is sufficient in that region to warrant a disable after 3 weeks, then the reviewer did their job. Even if we think an exception in that case would have been reasonable. Sure. In my region, that's a month with a NM flag. Then a disable. Then another month before an archival. Above and beyond that, reviewers can grant exceptions if they wish. That's my region. Not every region is that way. Ontario reviewer guidelines Bolded relevant portions. And again - this is only for my region. It doesn't necessarily apply to the cache being discussed. But to my understanding from these forums, this is fairly standard process. Well as you know, many reviewers are dogs. That's in reference to period of time since the NM was filed. Not since an innocuous Note was posted (which not everyone will see, let alone more prominently than the NEEDS MAINTENANCE flag). If policy is to disable after 3 weeks, 19 days, 15.5 days, whatever, then policy was followed, and an exception wasn't granted. We're free to disagree with that last portion, but reviewers are dogs, and it's unlikely that HQ will reprimand the reviewer for not granting an exception in a case that is ultimately a minor annoyance yet a potent can of stinky worms in the forums. I don't know what the owner should have done. I think the owner did everything the way I would have in that situation (assuming I couldn't get to gz for more than 19 days). But I'm not the one complaining that the cache was disabled. If it happened to me, I wouldn't be surprised. In fact it has happened to me. If it was archived though, absolutely I'd complain. I don't know, that's entirely subjective. I say 3 weeks (well 19 days actually, which is 2 days from 21, so I opted for simplicity since we don't know any specific timeframe rule in this case and 3 weeks is nearly 1 month) because in my region 1 month does absolutely seem a reasonable grace period to let an unmaintained cache stand before reviewer action, assuming no maintenance plan has been put in place and therefore the CO is within reasonable maintenance distance. So yes, 19 days, to be exact, seems a reasonable basic maintenance window, in my opinion. But I'm not the reviewer. Sure. Your point? I would contact the reviewer and tell them my maintenance plan, if I knew I wouldn't get to it within the reasonable maintenance period. If none of that applied, or I merely posted a note hoping the reviewer would see it (they are not obligated to), then I wouldn't be surprised if it got disabled for the still-outstanding flag. But I'd likely go to the reviewer and work it out with them directly. Sure. I wouldn't disagree. I'm saying if it's reviewer policy, then the reviewer did his job. If that window is say 2 months, then the reviewer did not do his job. In this case, I'm assuming the reviewer did his job but also did not grant an exception in this case, which could have been done if the reviewer had come to the same conclusion as us from analyzing recent logs and the log posters (which they're not obligated to do). It's not "removed from play". I've often gone searched for and found disabled caches (using normal search functions) that were still physically available to be found. Mainly because I read past logs and judged for myself that the cache is probably still there, in many cases only disabled because the owner is inactive. The purpose of the reviewer disabling the cache when he did, presumably, is because that was standard procedure given the grace period having an active NM flag, and the reviewer can't tell the future, and has no obligation to go check on the cache themselves to determine that past DNFs don't mean the cache is missing. Again, do I think the reviewer could have granted an exception? Certainly. But they're not obligated to, despite how any one of us interprets recent logs.

Still? The basic problem I've felt since the CHS was put in place that the process is becoming impersonal, so I'm kinda surprised to hear that reviewers are privately contacting COs first. The trend behind the CHS is faster action, so I've just assumed reviewers would skip a personal note since it serves no purpose other than slow the process down. (Well, unless the CO's a friend, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're talking about.) In my own experience, it's been for caches I have disabled (myself) for an extended period saying i'll get to fixing up, but keep putting it off. So I appreciate they remind me; but I also know that charity can only stretch so far. I haven't got a CHS email; I've never had an outstanding NM I've completely ignored, putting them in the hotseat of nudging me or taking action. I always address outstanding issues, so it's likely that positively affects my cache CHS, for one, it also means I am (hopefully, knock on wood) in reviewers' good books based on reputation. That helps a lot. And if so, it wouldn't be unwarranted, imo. Many reviewers are dogs. Some are humans. I missed or forgot this discussion, but, again, are you sure this is still current practice? Everything I'm seeing points to reviewers having no apparent interest in transient details anymore. If the cache looks bad, they don't seem to be brooking much variations. Didn't someone post an example involving a cache with a tradition of being disabled for winter every year that was archived anyway because the CHS flagged it? After all, the case we're discussing, the CO stated a "maintenance plan" right there in the log --"We will check on it when as soon as we're able to do another round of the dam" -- yet the reviewer still disabled the cache because it looked bad, regardless of whether you think it's the NM flag or the CHS that made it look bad. The reviewer doesn't seem to have even noticed the plan, let along been happy to accommodate it. I don't know how various regions may have adjusted their procedures so I can't speak on that. It's certainly possible, but all I've seen posted in the forums by reviewers is comments about allowing COs some leeway if they have presented maintenance plans for extended vacations. So that's what I'm running with, though it may not apply to every region.

But that's exactly what this CO did but the reviewer still disabled it. No, the CO didn't remove the NM flag, they only posted the note and left the flag. Thus the reviewer's next basic action would be disabling -- unless they read the detail and judged it okay leave in its low score state. In this case, either the reviewer read and felt the disabling was warranted given the 3 week NM grace period (which is apparently different in your area), or the reviewer didn't read and just went straight to the basic next step - disabling after 3 weeks of needing maintenance. The context of the point you quoted was whether the CO would re-enable after the reviewer disable -- OR repeatedly post an OM to clear the maintenance flag without actually checking up. That wasn't in the scope of the quoted logs above. The CO didn't cancel any concern. They acted according to their knowledge and judgment of their cache's state. The reviewer followed (presumably) protocol, by disabling a maintenance-needed cache which hadn't been addressed (flag removal or archival) in a 3 week period; or was judged to warrant disabling - this one being a judgment we feel would have been incorrect; but we aren't reviewers, and many reviewers are dogs. Because that's not how it's been done here unless there are usually 2 NMs with no CO response. Part of that might be that we only have 1 reviewer for the entire state, but even when we had multiple reviewers, a NM always got the courtesy post from the reviewer, notifying the CO that they're aware this cache might need maintenance and that if they come back and there's no action, they'll disable it. Here, our reviewers might make a private contact before taking an action on a cache; a pre-warning of sorts that the next step in their protocol is coming. There's no public note in their standard process before a disabling. There might be, but its certainly not the norm. The process of the quoted logs above doesn't surprise me, from a very basic procedural standpoint. The disabling was after an unaddressed maintenance flag for 3 weeks. AFAIK, there is no obligation for a reviewer to post a public note warning of an impending disable due to an outstanding maintenance flag. Now, if the reviewer had disabled after say a few days, or a week since the NM, then I'd cry foul - and if that were their normal procedure I might file a complaint that the reviewers are far too quick to disable after a NM. But 3 weeks? enh. Given the fact that a reviewer disable is not something to be offended about, since all it takes is a check and verification to re-enable and clear the maint flag... It's not like the cache was archived. A canned courtesy note is what is expected here and then the canned disable if no action taken. Is the cache in question in your region? If not, then I wouldn't project your region's reviewing policy there. If those reviewers' actions are the norm for that region, then I'm not surprised at the turn of events. I might ask to know if the reviewer read past logs, but I wouldn't say the reviewer did anything wrong, if that's their procedure. I would only file a NM if I felt the cache actually needs maintenance. And if the cache state went unaddressed for 3 weeks then I wouldn't be upset if the reviewer stepped in. After all, all it takes is the cache owner to follow up - either with the reviewer, or with a note on the cache page; since after that it really is entirely reviewer judgment as to whether, in time, a listing should be archived due to inactivity or not. Typically, a reviewer disabling a cache makes the CO take notice, and prioritize a maintenance run (needed or not) to re-instate the cache's good standing to the public. Win. This has already been discussed. Most reviewers are happy to know if there's a maintenance plan for a cache if its owner will knowingly be away for months at a time, and adjust their reviewing timelines accordingly for the CO. As a CO, I would not be surprised if a reviewer took action on my cache that was accruing DNFs (which I can't verify to actually be findable) if I either A] took no action to inform reviewers or the community that I'm away and will address it when I return (let alone remove the maint flag w/o checking) or B] hadn't informed reviewers earlier that I'd be away and any potential issues will be handled when I return, or informed that I had a friend willing to run maintenance while I'm away. ie, if you're going away 2-3 months, prepare a maintenance plan for your caches, and let reviewers know. Win.

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.

All reviewers are empowered to raise their hand and nominate a new reviewer to help out if they're feeling too busy. I've done that many times. The territory I used to cover all on my own is now served by eight volunteers. Right now, the pace of new cache hides is pretty stable in the USA and Australia. I don't think that this has very much to do with the etiquette question that's the subject of our forum thread here. Replacing a missing or damaged cache for an owner with their advance permission is always fine. Saying on the cache page that "community maintenance" is encouraged is NOT an adequate maintenance plan, and I won't publish a cache that includes such statements - regardless of whether it's part of a "power trail." "Throwdown" replacements are officially discouraged. A throwdown cache placed after a reviewer has already disabled a missing or damaged cache doesn't solve the underlying issue: the cache lacks an active owner. I will ignore the throwdown and archive the cache if the owner doesn't act to "accept" the throwdown retroactively. Many reviewers will do the same. But, many reviewers are dogs.