Search the Community

I just know the name about who Lightnin bug is speaking And not so many reviewers are agressive

Link to the cache in question First, I agree that Poland is in Europe. (I even have some FTFs there, though they have all sadly been archived.) Second, I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of "recently." The cache was archived almost six years ago, and the latest find was in 2019. Third, please recall that, for several years, it was against the guidelines to require a photo at an earthcache. This was an older cache, placed before mandatory photos were banned on earthcaches. I can't recall when this change was made, but I want to say it was around 2011. The guidelines were changed to allow photos again in 2019, but that was after this cache was already archived. Fourth, I note that reviewer territories and responsibilities change over time. "Sweeping" (following up on caches that appear to have issues) is not necessarily done by every reviewer. I don't know about other reviewers, but I don't make up the rules. I do, however, enforce them, and that's what geoawareUSA1 was doing at the time. When the earthcache at issue was published, there was no restriction on requiring photos. When this was later added, reviewers did not seek out earthcache listings that still contained a photo requirement, and so many remained. But if cachers brought it to a reviewer's attention, such as submitting a "needs reviewer attention" (formerly "needs archived"), then reviewers took appropriate action. On 9 September 2017, a geocacher logged that reviewer attention was needed, because this earthcache required photos. On 12 September 2017, a reviewer disabled the listing and gave the owner 30 days to remove the photo requirement. On 13 October 2017, since the owner hadn't taken any action, the reviewer archived the listing. Some time after that, a reviewer noticed that cachers were still logging finds on an archived cache and locked the listing. I'm not sure what the particular reason is for you bringing this up in 2023, since the focus of your ire appears to be largely moot. I hope we can all agree that, if a reviewer contacts a cache owner to let them know their cache is not in compliance with the guidelines, ignoring the reviewer is not the preferred technique. Since this post (a) hinges on a guideline that no longer exists and (b) seems to hint that reviewers should be ignored based solely on their country of origin, I'm not sure how much additional discussion is warranted, but I'll leave the topic open for now.

Thank you so much! (Slaps forehead) Why didn't I think of that? You can teach old dogs new tricks. Thanks again, MartyWalker1

I have published, and seen other Reviewers publish, many "six out of ten" challenges. There is no documented maximum, but I think you might run into trouble at or above the 80% level. Check with your local Reviewer if you push past 60%. I hope that this is helpful.

Having just read the blog post by this name linked from this week's newsletter, there's something the dog-loving author perhaps should have mentioned. Before taking your dog caching, please check the cache attributes! Eighteen of my hides have the "no dogs" attribute, not because I don't like dogs but because those caches are in places where dogs are prohibited. These are typically in national parks or local reserves where just the presence of dogs can have an adverse effect on the native wildlife.

I see two sentences that are self-refuting. Groundspeak makes the rules for their business. Just as you would. Both are just fine. We are not required to adore the decisions any business makes. That's why we 'vote with our dollar'. But honestly, I don't care if some user promotes something on their profile which I'll never be forced to look at. But if they sell on the listing of a cache that I want to find, then yeah, I'll be 'forced' to look at it. Big difference. Sure, but it's an opinion, subjective. What it comes down to is if Groundspeak chooses to allow profile pages to contain commercial/promo content - it's their website, their choice. We users are more than welcome to voice our concerns if they exist, and they are free to make a more informed decision on the matter afterwards. Another difference between cache pages and profiles is that the intent of viewing a cache page, publicly published, is to learn about a geocache and find it. Viewing the listing is necessary in order to accomplish that goal. Viewing a profile page's custom content is never a fundamental requirement for this activity. As for puzzles, while you're allowed to be required to gather information from a profile page to solve a puzzle, I would bet that many reviewers may not allow a puzzle cache requiring gathering information from a commercially-splattered profile page, since it'd effectively be the same as including it in the listing which is disallowed, and it may seem like the CO is attempting promote or sell via the cache listing puzzle. But IANAR. Intent of a geocache listing: Find a geocache (not promote your stuff) - the goal of geocaching. Intent of a profile listing: Learn about a user (a user may like to promote stuff) - not essential for geocaching. This is a distinction HQ has decided to allow. Now, I might also wager that if it seems a user is practically running a website off their profile content and making a profit from sales, HQ would absolutely step in and respond in the context of the TOU and abusing the system. I'm sure that would be a clause they would jump on if it seemed it was costing them to 'host' to the profit of a user, without an agreement like running ads on through the website. One might not like it if someone promotes product on their profile page, but it's a style of content HQ has deemed acceptable, and there'd definitely be a limit to that freedom.

In my opinion, profile pages full of self-praise could also be banned for the same reason. If you think about it more carefully, profile pages could be banned completely, because they do not add any value to the hobby. Anyway, Only Terms of Use regulates the content of the profile despite of how cheap or nasty it is. Definitely like this. Everyone only decides their own affairs. This is reviewed content. Reviewers has done a good job by removing even the slighest trace of commercial activity, sometimes even a little too far. There is a consistent reason behind this guideline. This is a part of goals for eliminating creating of new caches by wrong reasons.

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

While some reviewers in island locations have been known to play fast and loose with the 'guidelines' (especially the Caribbean), most require that the cache be left in the hands of a local to care for in the absence of the 'owner'. If the reviewer didn't require this, or your pre-arranged local assistant is no longer available, I'd agree that it's time to retire it or ask to have it adopted locally.

Thank you FamilieFrohne, No, I have not had problems with a routemark of yours. It is only a question because here it was stated that the mandatory variables were not covered and in "big and voluminous" categories, sometimes you ask for what you want, and not what is in the category norms. I was just asking because in the two "small" categories that I approve of Police and Accessible, I have had problems due to being inherited, and some do not even ask for a long description, and if you request it, the person who sends it gets upset; but they ask me in others and I have to do them, or the WM is not approved. In any case, with the years that I have been here (although there are not many and Spanish colleagues already realized how WM works from the forums to approve Giant letters of Cities at that time). If you complain about a way or ways to proceed and approve/deny pathmarks of a reviewer in the forum, the forum is not for this, you complain, I don't know who, because that same person (it's kind of silly because to someone sometimes, not even putting the example of error in front of him acts.) The problem is between two (reviever and post), you don't have to complain to wayfrog either, you don't have to complain to anyone (since they get angry even the nice reviewers with whom you never had a problem); But yes, a reviewer or several reviewers can complain that brands are bad, lazy, bad photos, attacks, without the forum being closed. No wonder more than one person once said that this is like a "mafia." And I don't want to think that, because this is growing and it's a game. And, above all, I do not justify attacks or insults. But like I said, everyone has flippant comments to put up with, and we all make mistakes (reviewers and creators). In these three years I have noticed a difference in attitude in some reviewers. They no longer have that patience, pedagogy, etc. for which they stood out in my beginnings, in which if they denied you something they told you how to improve or in which category a WM could go. And when patience fails, the process fails. And it's not a language problem.

Thanks Groundspeak for the updated stats! Rank - Username - Waymarks Reviewed 01 - silverquill - 66,621 02 - saopaulo1 - 59,366 03 - lumbricus - 49,968 04 - bluesnote - 41,164 05 - Math Teacher - 29,566 06 - Outspoken1 - 25,912 07 - BruceS - 25,473 08 - Dorcadion Team - 19,235 09 - fi67 - 15,228 10 - iconions - 14,084 11 - Marine Biologist - 13,164 12 - TheBeanTeam - 11,894 13 - Alfouine - 11,629 14 - Team Farkle 7 - 10,928 15 - PTCrazy - 10,444 16 - Dragontree - 10,156 17 - Ernmark - 10,152 18 - NW_history_buff - 10,147 19 - Jake39 - 8,834 20 - pmaupin - 8,676 21 - condor1 - 8,570 22 - Mark1962 - 7,984 23 - YoSam. - 7,799 24 - The Blue Quasar - 7,561 25 - Max Cacher - 7,437 26 - GEO*Trailblazer 1 - 6,872 27 - Bernd das Brot Team - 6,679 28 - Tuena - 6,522 29 - QuesterMark - 6,376 30 - veritas vita - 6,079 31 - tiki-4 - 5,873 32 - MountainWoods - 5,813 33 - T0SHEA - 5,633 34 - razalas - 5,419 35 - DougK - 5,034 36 - deano1943 - 4,992 37 - RakeInTheCache - 4,787 38 - jhuoni - 4,773 39 - Team Sieni - 4,770 40 - Brentorboxer - 4,770 41 - Lord Elwood - 4,737 42 - bill&ben - 4,704 43 - NCDaywalker - 4,574 44 - monkeys4ever - 4,532 45 - Norfolk12 - 4,399 46 - the federation - 4,247 47 - wildwoodke - 4,080 48 - ucdvicky - 4,079 49 - bootron - 3,942 50 - dreamhummie - 3,825 51 - Thorny1 - 3,704 52 - sfwife - 3,653 53 - Black Dog Trackers - 3,609 54 - Firefrog69 - 3,602 55 - ChapterhouseInc - 3,602 56 - macleod1 - 3,553 57 - scrambler390 - 3,493 58 - GT.US - 3,432 59 - frivlas - 3,413 60 - cache_test_dummies - 3,336 61 - Lat34North - 3,268 62 - elyob - 3,241 63 - huggy_d1 - 3,240 64 - Blue Man - 3,236 65 - woolsox - 3,182 66 - rjmcdonough1 - 3,157 67 - Grahame Cookie - 3,041 68 - Jeremy - 3,006 69 - GA Cacher - 2,952 70 - MikeGolfJ3 - 2,837 71 - Windsocker - 2,778 72 - Where's George - 2,774 73 - Tharandter - 2,732 74 - Bear and Ragged - 2,703 75 - Team GPSaxophone - 2,572 76 - Rayman - 2,521 77 - Bryan - 2,507 78 - Aladdin - 2,507 79 - Tante.Hossi - 2,482 80 - papermanone & catlover - 2,294 81 - Team Min Dawg - 2,254 82 - Atlanta Highland Bagpiper - 2,226 83 - Marky - 2,125 84 - J.A.R.S. - 2,117 85 - Zork V - 2,109 86 - ištván - 2,100 87 - puczmeloun - 2,088 88 - Kurt Franke - 2,076 89 - lenron - 2,032 90 - kbarhow - 1,972 91 - Biquidou - 1,967 92 - chstress53 - 1,930 93 - TeamBPL - 1,917 94 - Selmice - 1,886 95 - geotrouvtou59 - 1,880 96 - Faithwalker & DaMama - 1,860 97 - Hikenutty - 1,856 98 - BarbershopDru - 1,854 99 - The Leprechauns - 1,849 100 - The_Draglings - 1,840

Beste Geocaching Community, Ongetwijfeld volgen jullie het nieuws betreffende de ontwikkelingen van het Coronavirus. Het huidige advies van onze regering: Kom niet bij elkaar in grote groepen en houdt 1,5 meter afstand tot elkaar.Verspreiding van het virus zorgt ervoor dat we onze kwetsbaren en zorgverleners in moeilijke situaties brengen en de zorgdruk in heel Nederland vergroten. Het gaat erom dat er geen mensen doodgaan omdat jij je dagelijkse bezigheden en sociale contact belangrijker vond. Daar knelt de schoen…. het er op uit gaan in kleine groep om te gaan geocachen draagt hier aan bij! Het zou niet moeten uitmaken of ons land in “lockdown” is of niet.Deze inzichten heeft ons, het Nederlandse reviewerteam doen besluiten om in ieder geval tot en met 6 april geen nieuwe geocaches meer te publiceren, of zoveel langer als de maatregelen duren. Er wordt verantwoordelijkheid dragen naar elkaar gevraagd. #zorgvoorelkaar #socialdistancing Namens het Nederlandse Reviewers team The 12th man

Because we review for compliance with the Geocache Hiding Guidelines. The Guidelines include, among many other things, coverage of buried caches and caches that deface the object they're attached to (like bolting a birdhouse into a tree). So, many Reviewers ask about the container, how it's hidden, and how a visiting geocacher retrieves the cache and accesses the log.

I am thinking that the reviewer was reviewing the cache instead of the listing. Why reviewers need information about the physical cache at all, if they are reviewing the listing?

Not quite the same but there's a Schroedinger's cache setup nearby where the last finder, after signing the log, is asked to place it back at one of the two predefined waypoints for the next finder. If you go to find it, the cache is (tongue in cheek) simultaneously in both locations and neither, until you choose to open one and find out if you chose wisely. I think that was a special exception to publish, since you start at the center point between both waypoints (IIRC they were projections from posted). I'm not sure if both waypoints had to abide by proximity guidelines, or how new publishes nearby would be treated with two potential 'final' locations to be far enough from. Point being, if the coordinates of the container (final or waypoint) are sufficiently accurate to imply ONE location even if there may be multiple containers, then that may not be an issue. But if the coordinates imply one location, that needs to be the cache location. If instructions are provided for an alternate location, it would be another physical element in the cache listing and fall under its own proximity check. And providing instructions for another location may fall under letterboxing-style guidance. Ultimately it may be a reviewer judgment call. But, I would guess generally this idea would be a no, especially if it's a Traditional cache. 1 container, 1 location. Now it may also depend what you consider 'container'. Say, for example, the 'container' contains a number of possible places to sign. As big as perhaps a tree with multiple dangling logbooks and you only need to sign one. That may be allowed. But I wouldn't see that happening more than the size of a small tree, where sufficient coordinates would all point to the tree. But for example a library cache with an alternative outside the building for outside business hours? What's to stop people from just signing that location instead of doing it as intended within the library? You wouldn't be able to force people to do it rightly or it becomes an ALR. I doubt they'd allow you to request and require that library staff move the container itself inside and outside every day at opening/closing. Every library cache I've seen simply states (or links to) its business hours. And if the reviewer deems it a publishable indoor cache, then that's how it'd work. This means that you must do the cache during the hours it's acceptable, no exception. And if it's not a library, it almost certainly wouldn't be publishable today (if reviewers are being globally consistent). Easy answer: Ask your local reviewer!

It's not adding another disclaimer, it's adding the first disclaimer in situations where there is none. Someone who opens the app right now and navigates to a mystery cache where there has been no disclaimer added to the description will at no point see a single disclaimer. The short term solution I proposed would take one staff member 30 minutes to implement. It only requires adding a line to the guideline page and no coding changes. As others have mentioned in this thread, because most COs are already adding this at the top of their descriptions, it should also have a very minimal impact in terms of more work for reviewers. I also don't believe it is necessary to apply this rule retroactively. It would just be a good idea moving forward. Maybe one day when there's a long term solution, but for now there are very simple changes that could be made in the short term.

Tot onze spijt hebben wij, de Nederlandse reviewers, in samenspraak met HQ besloten alle (CITO)events te archiveren. In navolging van de adviezen van de regering en het RIVM zijn wij tot dit besluit gekomen. Deze verregaande maatregel geldt voor events tot en met 6 april. Mocht deze periode door de instanties worden verlengd dan zullen wij hierin meegaan. Uiteraard mag je een nieuw event aanbieden voor een datum na 6 april, maar we kunnen helaas geen garanties geven dat het event niet alsnog gearchiveerd zal worden. Namens het Nederlandse Reviewers team The 12th man

I don't think blacklisting things will solve it. Torgut, in certain categories you already know that the review problem depends on a certain person or persons. If I blacklist the WMs that show up some conflicting reviewer then I would only post 2 or 3. There are categories that always have very minimum criteria, like not being necessary a photo, or even that you put a long description, something that I don't share. But it is also clear that there are certain categories that are perverted by the passage of time by some reviewers who act as they act or I do not know if it is only by a reviewer. So, the best thing is that if you have a clear complaint, that you make it to whom it should be made, to wayfrog. I have already made them at the time, but this way it won't be just one person.m complaining. The forum is not going to help much, only for doubts. In official Local Tourism I have had a lot of problems. Sometimes they don't admit events, sometimes they do, depending on who sends them. But mostly with web pages that some consider that they are not suitable. The problem of the official web pages, I have "talked" "fought" with pmaupin, who is the one who checks my caches in many categories and it is usually solved. It is that in my area we have many official and tourist websites: city council (Ourense or similars) province (Ourense also but the Diputación and similars) autonomous community (Xunta de Galicia in Galicia), country (spain info) areas (tourism Rías Baixas, Ribeira Sacra...). It is a category that I like so much.

Reviewers don't review found it logs, so they are already out of the question. HQ will reinstate log if you delete it without a proper reason. You are correct that the checker acts as an arbitrator. It is the only proof you can ask in your challenge description. Anything else is an ALR and not allowed. Is this something you didn't know before publishing a challenge?

To your point, I can see how a challenge like that might be "uninteresting." A challenge checker for something like that would simply be the photo of the attribute plus the number of finds that go with that attribute. I'm not bored by my challenges, in fact, I pride myself on unique and interesting challenges that often challenge cachers with thousands of finds to qualify. As you know, from reading all these posts, I'd rather the burden of proof be on the person trying to qualify than the CO checking their stats for them. I'm aware that it's the opposite, but to me it's silly that statistics never have to be posted and that the checker is simply for arbitration purposes to free up the reviewers and HQ. This is only the case for challenges published after the moratorium was lifted.

You deleted logs probably because they didn't qualify. I wanted to delete logs when people don't post their qualifications. Unfortunately for me, the guidelines say that providing qualifying proof isn't needed to log a find. Which morphs the conversation into, why have a checker then? The answer to that question is that the checker acts as an arbitrator and keeps people out of HQ's hair and keeps the reviewers out of the conversation. From all these back and forth, logging your qualifying stats is more of a common courtesy than anything else. I'm grateful for those who post their qualifications, even though I know now, it's not necessary to claim a find.

In the UK we have a national series called "Church Micro" some of these have a container in the Church Yard (which usually doubles as a graveyard/cemetary), but the reviewers will ask to see evidence that the Vicar/Verger/Church Council have given approval for the hide and I've never found one actually among the gravestones but more likely to be along the boundary edge/fence; but most of the Church Micros require you to go into the Church Yard and collect some info, maybe from headstones etc., and use that to calculate the final co-ords which are outside the grounds - these are some of my favourite caches.

I understand that it acts as an arbitrator and makes the lives of the reviewers significantly easier, but posting your proof of qualifying statistics should be mandatory by the person who is looking to find it. I don't think it's right to have a challenge cache, that has a checker, and the person doesn't post their qualifications, either before they find it, or with their found it log. That burden shouldn't fall on the cache owner. I know I already qualify for the challenge, I'm the person who hid the cache. The CO has to qualify for their own challenge to get it published. I'm grateful for those who use common courtesy and post their qualifications either in a note before they find it, or with their found it log.

Accusations of cultural insensitivity or worse are a very serious matter, so I did some further investigation by studying all event caches that have ever been submitted in India, whether or not they were published. I closely examined the reasons stated by the Reviewer for any event cache that was not published. Here is what I found: Since 2000, there have been 188 event cache pages created with India selected as the event location. Four event cache submissions, all from vacationing/traveling geocachers, are currently pending initial review for event dates in 2024. One event was denied because it was submitted on less than the required 14 days' advance notice. The Reviewer's note dealt solely with that guideline issue. Four events submitted by vacationing geocachers were denied because they were located inside an airport. The Reviewer's note dealt solely with the guideline requiring that events be open for anyone to attend. One event, submitted by a local geocacher, was sent back for revisions because it was described as more of an organized cache hunt instead of a social gathering. The host chose to self-archive their event instead of making the necessary edits. The Reviewer's note dealt solely with the "organized cache hunt" guideline issue. A number of events were self-archived by the geocacher who created the cache page, without ever submitting for review or interacting with the Reviewer. Some published events were canceled by the host for reasons such as changes in travel plans or the lack of "will attend" logs, with no evidence that Reviewer comments led to the decision to cancel. Approximately 50 events, all submitted by vacationing/traveling geocachers, were archived by a Reviewer using a "form letter" note reading substantially as follows: "Thank you for your submission. We have seen an increased number of events submitted by players during holiday trips and many of them are not attended by anyone other than the event host and their traveling companions. This is especially true for events in remote locations and does not fulfill the social aspect of a geocaching event. To that end, we are trying to reduce the number of these types of events. There is no local player community in this location and recent events in this location have not been attended by anyone other than the event host. It is unlikely that anyone will attend this event except you and your travel companions. I am declining to publish this event listing for those reasons. Thank you." I see nothing culturally insensitive in this form note, either. All of the other event cache submissions were published. The vast majority of these were attended by just the visiting organizer and no more than a handful of other visiting tourists, which led to the approach described just above, which Reviewers began using in 2018 at the direction of Geocaching HQ. Based on my study of every event cache page for India, I did not uncover any examples where the Reviewer went beyond using our standard form notes, and added comments about Indian people or culture. I must ask you, therefore, to point me to specific examples of the behavior which you allege to have occurred. You can provide the GC Codes if you don't want to provide the geocaching account names of the Indian geocachers you spoke with. Reviewers are able to see unpublished cache pages. I look forward to your prompt reply with supporting facts.