Rude Reviewer Won't Approve Cache

[+CompuCash]

now tht is really weird -

 

when I responded to this thread this morning (may have been early afternoon) I got an error message said it was locked - then went back to the main page and did a refresh and sure enough it was locked -

 

can a thread be unlocked once it has been locked?

 

But it is more appropriate that I post this now -

 

working with the same approver - trying to get a series of 6 caches approved - a couple little glitches that should be fixed by 'natural barriers'.

 

But I am doing what he asked and waiting - as he is consulting with his local counterpart - then I will do what I gotta do to get them approved.

 

But what I tried to post earlier was that for an earlier series I did, after a few days I got concerned because he usually approves really fast - told me he had been out of town and to hang in there as he had over 125 caches in the list - about 12 hours hours later they were all approved. Not bad service I'd say.

 

Now he musta stayed up all night to do all that. Course I don't know where I was in the list but that is just a lot of work.

 

cc\

[+M&DofKJE]

Y'know, when you submit a cache, there's a box you check saying that you have read and agree to the guidelines and terms of use as set forth by Geocaching.com. If your reviewer tells you you can't place a cache in a spot because it's contrary to the guildelines (and that's clearly the case here...you're not 528' away with the second cache), the answer to your question is pretty well covered under the "I agree to..." part. Guidelines, rules, whatever you want to call them. If you agree to abide by them, you agree to abide.

Who told you to bring up a debate stopping point, even if it is right on the money?

[+sept1c_tank]

...can a thread be unlocked once it has been locked?

Yes, but I don't reccommend it.

[CoyoteRed]

Y'know, when you submit a cache, there's a box you check saying that you have read and agree to the guidelines and terms of use as set forth by Geocaching.com. If your reviewer tells you you can't place a cache in a spot because it's contrary to the guildelines (and that's clearly the case here...you're not 528' away with the second cache), the answer to your question is pretty well covered under the "I agree to..." part. Guidelines, rules, whatever you want to call them. If you agree to abide by them, you agree to abide.

Who told you to bring up a debate stopping point, even if it is right on the money?

Stopping point? Hardly.

 

If you really want to examine the guidelines, let's:

Cache Saturation

 

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

 

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together.

 

Hey, look, it's even listed under the "Cache Saturation" heading. Funny thing is, you have two interesing points somewhat close to each other and no other caches for miles around, then you can only place one, because otherwise the "cache saturation" would be too high. Yep, 2 caches in 1000 square miles is too high because they are less 528' from each other.

 

Oh, and now that the "guidelines" where strictly adhered to both caches are in existence. I would find it ironic if the parking coordinates didn't change at all. Wouldn't you?

[+StarBrand]

Play by the (rules/guidelines) or don't play.

 

While some feel the 528 rule is not effecient or smart - it is there, it does exist. I have sometimes found good cache spots and creative hide locations but if they are too close to other listings, then I can't get it listed. Pretty simple concept.

[+Renegade Knight]

Play by the (rules/guidelines) or don't play.

Don't forget, it's not a rule it's a guideline.

 

There is a cache hidden in a sagebrush behind the dog pound. 700' over give or take is another cache along the road. Neither cache is bad as there is something mildly interesting. But:

 

In between the two is a neglected section of the park. A basalt ledge has a rift in it. The entrance to the rift is sheltered by trees. When you climb into the crack and up some rocks the rift jags left. At that point it opens up a bit and you can stop and look hidden from everthing. That's where I placed my cache and I called it "Splitting the Difference" entirely because I liked that location much better than the cache on either side. Nobody is likely to find it on accident. However It can't be listed on GC.com so I put it on Navicache. Nobody has found it, but nobody is going to steal the spot on GC either.

 

You can still play this game. This site may or may not list the cache. That doesn't mean the cache is broken, defective, or somehow lacking in merit. People like to assume that caches that fail the GC.com approval process are somehow not viable. That's a wrong assumption as well.

[CoyoteRed]

Play by the (rules/guidelines) or don't play.

So, in other words, "tough nuts."

 

No matter how stupid, assinine, or far-out a guideline is, no one has any right to argue against it? No matter what?

 

~Is that the bleating of sheep I hear?~

[+StarBrand]

Play by the (rules/guidelines) or don't play.

So, in other words, "tough nuts."

 

No matter how stupid, assinine, or far-out a guideline is, no one has any right to argue against it? No matter what?

 

~Is that the bleating of sheep I hear?~

You love to put words in my mouth.....

 

Read my entire original post for a complete picture.

 

If you don't like the rule/guideline - you are welcome to lobby againist it (as you have) but it is none-the-less in effect as of now. So we MUST therefore abide by it until enough folks complain and can manage to get the guideline changed.

 

My original post in this thread was simply meant to convey that we have little choice but to abide by current guidelines. Complain, shout and cry all you like to get them changed in the future. But abide by them to get a cache listed today.

[+Greymane]

As I read through this thread, I see mostly:

 

(whine) (flame) (whine) (cry) (sob) (whine) (flame) (whine) (sob)

 

Doing a few calculations, this is what I came up with: For my county (~ 326 square miles not including water masses), following the saturation rule, I can place just under 10,000 caches without overlap. I understand that much of the land is private or off limits to caches. Let's assume 90% is unusable. That leaves me room for 1,000 caches. There are currently exactly three dozen caches in my county. (Yes, I have been slacking and we are kinda rural.) Given I can place another 964 caches without overlapping, should it be such a major issue if they have this rule / guideline?

 

I understand some areas are more saturated and it is a bit more of an issue, but is it really worth all of this agonizing?

[CoyoteRed]

Doing a few calculations...

...only assumes any one spot on the map that you throw your dart at is remotely interesting. Considering many interesting spots are grouped together raw calculations of this type are irrelevant.

[ju66l3r]

Doing a few calculations, this is what I came up with: For my county (~ 326 square miles not including water masses), following the saturation rule, I can place just under 10,000 caches without overlap. I understand that much of the land is private or off limits to caches. Let's assume 90% is unusable. That leaves me room for 1,000 caches. There are currently exactly three dozen caches in my county. (Yes, I have been slacking and we are kinda rural.) Given I can place another 964 caches without overlapping, should it be such a major issue if they have this rule / guideline?

This topic may help.

[+tabulator32]

I personally like the 528' guideline because I get tired of walking every ten feet and frisking a small fir tree for a 35 mm film can.

 

I ALSO like the idea that exceptions to the rule, er...'scuse me...guideline...can be made for extenuating circumstances.

 

I wonder how this may have turned out differently if there had been a polite inquiry to the email address and a polite suggestion made in the forums as to why this would be an extenuating circumstance. It certainly would have warranted more consideration than this.

 

Just my opinion.

 

[+Jeep_Dog]

No matter how stupid, assinine, or far-out a guideline is, no one has any right to argue against it? No matter what?

 

~Is that the bleating of sheep I hear?~

CR, I understand your point, and know that you are being sarcastic in pointing out that the guidelines should not be argued. I am just using your post a a stepstone to my point.

 

I think that overall as a community, and more specifically, a cache that merits an exception to the guideline is intelligently discussed and considered. Last March I took issue with a cache that was not approved (link to that discussion here). The cache was discussed by the community, and more importantly, looked at again by the reviewer(s), and eventually approved.

 

However, a cache owner giving their opinion of the reviewer really does not help much in an intelligent discussion and consideration. This point was made several times in this topic, and I think it is an important point. For example, if I feel my area approver has been "rude," "curt," or any other negative adjective or adverb, I take a couple of steady breaths, then give the benefit of the doubt to the reviewers, especially in light of the fact that the only perception I have to go by is a short reviewer's note (and only the great Geocaching gods know how many those poor saps have to write in a week!).

 

Just as with everything in life, if we stick to the facts and avoid opinions/perceptions, providing solutions to problems is so much easier, eh?

[+Greymane]

Right, didn't want to implode anyone's head, so I used very basic math to prove a point. Regardless which numbers you use, it is a lot of caches in a given area. Certainly, for my area, it is a lot more caches than are currently active.

[CoyoteRed]

I ALSO like the idea that exceptions to the rule, er...'scuse me...guideline...can be made for extenuating circumstances.

It doesn't even have to be extenuating circumstances. How about a question of how different one cache is from another.

 

Do you really need two caches that show you the same thing? Most likely not. I wouldn't see much appeal in two caches whose sole goal was to show me the same statue or corner park.

 

OTOH, one cache in one park and another in a different park, I won't care if the two were on opposite sides of a wall seperating the parks.

 

As I see the instance in the OP--one a micro and the other the start of a night cache--even with just 100 and some odd feet seperating them, who with a straight face is going to say those two are going to be confused with each other. Clearly, cache saturation wasn't an issue in this cache because the start was simply moved over a bit.

 

As more and more caches are placed and the proximity rule forces some decent locations to be skipped there is going to come a time where something is going to have to change.

 

...of course, I guess, there is always the nearest Walmart for an easy hide...

[+Renegade Knight]

I've stayed out of the main debate but then realized that the arguments have left out one key issue. I did have to make an assumption.

 

What we have is a cache and the start of a night cache. Assuming the night cache uses Fire tacks, or reflective markers, then those are not caches. If you have a map that says "Start at the X shaped Tree" the X shaped tree is not a cache and should not block another cache even if it's hidden at it's base. The 528' rule doesn't apply here.

 

A clue used to find another cache isn't a cache.

 

Case in point. There is a multi cache that I recently did. The middle waypoint is 250 miles from the start. If you can't find that micro there is a bridge about 300-500' away with a name. The name can be seen from where the middle stage is supposed to be and can be used to solve the middle stage. The micro is a cache. The bridge is not. The bridge should not block a cache 200' on the opposite side.

[CoyoteRed]

Just as with everything in life, if we stick to the facts and avoid opinions/perceptions, providing solutions to problems is so much easier, eh?

Tis true.

[+fly46]

I wonder how this may have turned out differently if there had been a polite inquiry to the email address and a polite suggestion made in the forums as to why this would be an extenuating circumstance. It certainly would have warranted more consideration than this.

Most would have turned out differently. If people are given explanations as opposed to orders or angst, it turns out quite better.

I had a cache (now archived) that was about 400 feet away from another, but mine was allowed because the first part had no physical container and the two places (both cemetaries) were physcially separate -- and I actually talked to the cache reviewer.

[+hoovman]

This has probably been touched on before, but here are my thoughts:

 

Many 'cachers read "guideline" and interpret it as "generally suggested but not required". I'm in that camp. We all seem to agree that "rule" would mean violations would not be approved.

 

I think some of the friction here is that the reviewer appears to be applying 528' as a rule: less than 528', then no approval. Period. But the site calls it a guideline, so there is an expectation on the part of some of us that there will be at least flexibility in enforcement, or perhaps no enforcement of the 528' limitation.

 

I propose GC.com adopt the following rewrite:

 

Cache Saturation

As a rule, caches placed within 0.10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache will not be approved. The goal of the 0.10 mile limitation is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

 

Special requests can be made of the reviewer, and the opinon of a second reviewer may be requested, but ultimately the decision of the reviewer(s) is final. Example of exceptional cases where caches might be approved within 528' of each other include: significant difference in altitude, significant physical barrier between the caches.

 

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together.

[Lawcomic]

Don't blame the reviewer. They are likely just following the rules.

 

Blame the rules, as they are artificially draconian for no rational reason.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Don't blame the reviewer.  They are likely just following the rules.

 

Blame the rules, as they are artificially draconian for no rational reason.

Wow, a knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk reaction! Classic!

Edited July 5, 2005 by VegasCacheHounds

[+woodsters]

Nothing has changed around here...

[+El Diablo]

Nothing has changed around here...

Just one thing....I now have more posts than you.

 

El Diablo

[+M&DofKJE]

Well, I can think of one example where caches are less than 528 feet apart (although 3 dimensionally they are further apart than that). There's this one which is 319 feet away from this one. Walking is well over .1 miles between caches, and therefore are allowed under the rul... guidelines. It was a fun pair when I took a 16 mile hike in Nashville a few weeks ago. I think what they are referring to as far as cache sautration would be something like the City Island series in Daytona (which I desperately need to go maintain and replace some drenched logs {uggh, rained every day since early June}) where on a small island I squeezed 8 caches, just for the fun of it.

 

.....edited to correct link

Edited July 6, 2005 by M&DofKJE

[+LSUMonica]

Well, I can think of one example where caches are less than 528 feet apart (although 3 dimensionally they are further apart than that).

 

Remember what the guidelines are for -- to make sure cachers don't stumble upon another cache in the area while searching for one! Often times the reviewers will take into account geographical boundaries that would naturally prevent some one from stumbling upon another cacher nearby.

 

Believe me --- there is no way you could mistake these two caches!!!! If you did, you might take a mighty tumble and you better know how to swim!!!

[Lawcomic]

Don't blame the reviewer.  They are likely just following the rules.

 

Blame the rules, as they are artificially draconian for no rational reason.

Wow, a knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk reaction! Classic!

...and yet the irony of your post escapes you. (No smilie included).

[+caderoux]

I wonder how this may have turned out differently if there had been a polite inquiry to the email address and a polite suggestion made in the forums as to why this would be an extenuating circumstance.  It certainly would have warranted more consideration than this.

Most would have turned out differently. If people are given explanations as opposed to orders or angst, it turns out quite better.

I had a cache (now archived) that was about 400 feet away from another, but mine was allowed because the first part had no physical container and the two places (both cemetaries) were physcially separate -- and I actually talked to the cache reviewer.

Your cache might not have been approved with the current interpretations of guidelines or a different approver.

[+woodsters]

Your cache might not have been approved with the current interpretations of guidelines or a different approver.

Then again, it MIGHT have been.....

 

You never know....

[+Renegade Knight]

...Your cache might not have been approved with the current interpretations of guidelines or a different approver.

Given that the only cache within 528' of the cache that was archived is the archived cache itself it should have been approved.

 

The other spot is a starting point for the night cache. If the night cache is an honest night cache there is no cache there to block the one that was archived. Huntnlady has not confirmed if the night cache is normal and uses firtacks, UV paint etc. or a cache container (which would not be normal for a night cache).at yet).

[+caderoux]

...Your cache might not have been approved with the current interpretations of guidelines or a different approver.

Given that the only cache within 528' of the cache that was archived is the archived cache itself it should have been approved.

 

The other spot is a starting point for the night cache. If the night cache is an honest night cache there is no cache there to block the one that was archived. Huntnlady has not confirmed if the night cache is normal and uses firtacks, UV paint etc. or a cache container (which would not be normal for a night cache).at yet).

I think the OP has stated further up the thread that they are a trail of firetacks and they moved the start of the trail further away. The cacher will probably still park near the micro and walk the same trail, so environmental impact and cache density (physical + virtual) are not actually improved by this workaround - except maybe some firetacks are removed from trees.

 

My quoted comments were directed at the other poster with the 400 foot difference on another cache (which _was_ approved, and at the time, neither was archived based on my reading of their post) when one conflicting stage was also (in my opinion) pure virtual.

 

OP's approver considers virtuals a stage (this is correct according to the guidelines) and he/she also considers the firetack trail starting point a stage (what is or isn't a "stage" is not really covered by the guidelines). What approvers have been stating is that virtual caches exclude physical caches and virtual stages exclude physical stages of other multi-caches. My point being that the 400 foot one might not have been approved under these interpretations of the guidelines, since virtuals count.

 

My personal opinion here is that regardless of the guidelines, there may be real merit to granting a variance in a case like this (and perhaps in all virtual stage cases). But what can you do, it's a creative sport/hobby/pasttime/activity/whatever we do.

 

For instance, I would imagine two mystery/multi caches can give the same library as a starting point if it's a book-lookup-type cache stage or similar - and I would imagine an approver wouldn't think twice about approving such a cache.

 

The uncertainty of what will and won't be approved and consulting with your approver before you plan out a mega-multi tour of your fair city means that I'm simply going to list those types of caches elsewhere. It's a lot of work to start with and then after all the recon and prep work you have to go out and adjust everything. Maybe better to simply make a lot of traditionals (better for maintenance, anyway) - but then that might look like a power trail and then you'll be in a whole 'nother world of hurt.

[+treasure_hunter]

Find a different local approver and ask him to approve it.

[+Mopar]

Find a different local approver and ask him to approve it.

Because they NEVER talk to one another.

[+treasure_hunter]

Find a different local approver and ask him to approve it.

Because they NEVER talk to one another.

Kinda like mopar NEVER has a nice post.

[+sbell111]

I think the most amazing thing about this thread is that the OP hasn't killed it and let it fall away.

[+Mopar]

Find a different local approver and ask him to approve it.

Because they NEVER talk to one another.

Kinda like mopar NEVER has a nice post.

Sure I do. I occasionally have a helpful post, and really, this is one of them.

 

Don't ya think reviewer B would see reviewer A's notes on the cache page? Don't ya think if ya asked reviewer B to look at your cache he would talk to reviewer A who usually does your area and ask what's up?

Do you really think trying to go behind your local reviewer's back is going to score brownie points with him or the second reviewer?

[+treasure_hunter]

LMAO, I suppose that you could go behind the other reviewers back and talk to another, tell him that the other reviewer has this grudge against you and wont approve anything. LOL. Or I would probably re-submit the same cache page and ask another reviewer to have a look at it before hand.

Then again, thats just me.

[+Renegade Knight]

LMAO, I suppose that you could go behind the other reviewers back and talk to another, tell him that the other reviewer has this grudge against you and wont approve anything. LOL. Or I would probably re-submit the same cache page and ask another reviewer to have a look at it before hand.

Then again, thats just me.

My experience talking to approvers up front has been abysmal. They review caches, but don't answer questions about cache approvability or issues. Once you submit the cache though the questions come out. You are left with the choice of doing all the work to get your cache placed, or not even bother. Maybe other people in other areas have had better luck.

 

The forums seldom change anything. The story goes like this. Cache owner places cache. Cache reviewer says "no cache for you!". Cache owner is annoyed, Cache reviewer is annoyed. Cache owner posts in forums. Forum Regulars are annoyed and beat up the Cache owner. The Cache approver posts the other side of the story and after much angst by all involved, nothing happens, nobody is happy and the guidelines become just a little bit less flexible.

 

Once a decision is made though the approvers and admins do back it up. Huntnlady's cache is dead unless it's modified even though the rule used to stop it doesn't apply.

[+budd-rdc]

My experience talking to approvers up front has been abysmal. They review caches, but don't answer questions about cache approvability or issues.  Once you submit the cache though the questions come out.  You are left with the choice of doing all the work to get your cache placed, or not even bother.  Maybe other people in other areas have had better luck.

The very Krypton that is allegedly rude has communicated with me promptly on at least two future hides I wanted to work on. Krypton's e-mail was short and succint, but I appreciated it for being to-the-point, and there was one smiley in the e-mail

 

I'm not going to inflate my expectations on that experience alone, though, since Hemlock said he's reviewing less so Krypton's workload must have increased.

[+mtn-man]

My experience talking to approvers up front has been abysmal.

I'm sorry that this has been your experience. If you have problems it would be best if you report them to approvers@geocaching.com please.

 

 

It is disappointing to see this topic degrade to the point of generalizations and general bashing and espousing ways to circumvent the guidelines process.

 

[+Team Teuton]

And they're you go.

Beautiful. Thank you.

Heh.

[+trippy1976]

If you feel your reviewer is rude or unhelpful, email

approvers@geocaching.com

 

We don't need another thread that micro-analyzes a reviewer's every move. The constructive part of this thread has run its course. Flame me, I'm locking it.