Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Trav'lin Two

? About The Cache Approvers

Recommended Posts

...There are proper channels for airing grievances--email addresses that have been given out over and over again. Those channels can actually do something about the problem and they have done something about them from time to time. ...

 

Those channels need to be seen doing some good. Plus the secrecy that involves the use of sock puppets for a lot of mods and reviewers provides an instant disconnect between someones repuation (hopefully built on solid work and not lies and rumors) and their new sock puppet. Then there is the general rule of secrecy about most all things. We as cachers can't see first hand how TPTB are acting on our behalf when nothing ever comes out of the 'appropriate channels'. We only hear that third hand as well. Which as you have said, is not the hand to be dealing from.

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>You pose an interesting question. First given the controversy generated by many approvers and TPTB in their of work say in BC, or Utah regardless of which side is in the right my general statement is warranted.

That is off topic, since we are talking about taking advantage of knowing the coordinates in order to find the cache, not thier abilities to deal with local caching issues.

Second reviewers do not toe as strict of a line as you infer.
Yes they do and agian, if you can prove it, please do so through channels and not through general accusations
The ethics they employ in their dealings both as reviewers and as individuals varies from people I would trust with my life to people that I don’t trust at all based on their actions.
Third, I don’t sweep things under the carpet. If I did have specific knowledge of a wrong doing I am more than willing to call it out where it's appropriate. Since I do hear things from people I am not always at liberty to share their experience. However I do note it as an issue and keep it in mind. Strangely enough the mods in the forum don’t like when a general statment or even a specific (and true) accucation is made and hush it up quickly thus rewarding unethical behavior. Since I didn’t make anything more than a general and true statement your post is a prime example of how calling things out is flagged as undesirable and hushed.
This implies that you are hearing third party information and accepting that at face value.

 

Since my first hand experience as a reviewer and being personal friends with many reviewers is that this is not a habit, and you admit that your accusations are based on rumor, I have no problem with disregarding your accusations and your rantings have no value to this conversation.

I stand by my statement because sometimes courtesy and ethics clash and yes I can prove that as well.
I also stand by my statement. If you can prove it, please do so through proper channels instead of airing dirty laundry. Which isn't as dirty as you are making folks believe.
However thank you for the note that reviewers who do cheat should be reported.
Reviewers have a code of conduct of sorts. If anyone has any questions about our behavior, please send it to contact at geocaching.

 

As far as the OP's question, it is tempting, and we even get asked by our local cachers asking if thier answer is correct or not. Those are referred to the cache owner to validate.

Share this post


Link to post
Does it solve the problem...

 

No, it doesn't solve a problem. What it does is let anyone who cares to read this thread know that not everyone has a rosey picture of those in charge as some would have them believe.

 

I see this time and time again where volunteers rush to say how upstanding each and every one of them are and how dare anyone suggest they not infallible nor have there ever been problems.

 

Yeah, we know the party line and we ain't buying it.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm...

 

How about a hideous puzzle which resolves to one location and put a different set of coords in the reviewer note. Put a cache at both locations. See which one gets found and by whom.

 

:anicute:

Share this post


Link to post
Does it solve the problem...

 

No, it doesn't solve a problem. What it does is let anyone who cares to read this thread know that not everyone has a rosey picture of those in charge as some would have them believe.

 

I see this time and time again where volunteers rush to say how upstanding each and every one of them are and how dare anyone suggest they not infallible nor have there ever been problems.

 

Yeah, we know the party line and we ain't buying it.

I will stand by my fellow reviewers the same way I stand by my fellow cachers. If you are going to make an accusation, you better prove it. If you see it, then report it through channels. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of hot air.

Share this post


Link to post
Does it solve the problem...

 

No, it doesn't solve a problem. What it does is let anyone who cares to read this thread know that not everyone has a rosey picture of those in charge as some would have them believe.

 

I see this time and time again where volunteers rush to say how upstanding each and every one of them are and how dare anyone suggest they not infallible nor have there ever been problems.

 

Yeah, we know the party line and we ain't buying it.

Fine, how about some facts then. It would be nice to see some facts, thank you.

 

Otherwise, you are simply stating innuendo, which I have proved in the past can not only be WRONG but is also upsetting to those innocent folks who are in the right and play the game within the rules** (remember, its a game people, geez). Feel free to look at my stats for example. Its pretty obvious that I'm not cheating.

 

Unsubstantiated rumors do not belong in the forums (and fall under the respect guideline). Facts you have regarding reviewers who are abusing their special rights should be emailed to the contact address for disposition. If you get no response, then you should take it to the Geocaching.com Web Site forums, since it is an issue specifically about the running of the web site.

 

** Some of you may remember my experiment where I said a person had faked their finds though they never have.

Edited by mtn-man

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm...

 

How about a hideous puzzle which resolves to one location and put a different set of coords in the reviewer note. Put a cache at both locations. See which one gets found and by whom.

 

:anicute:

 

No duh - people aren't perfect. But your incessent whinging about the imperfections of an imperfect world is tiring. If you wish to create a rube goldberg contraption to check for unexpecting evil mustache-wearing reviewers in their search for a first find for a plastic container go right ahead.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm...

 

How about a hideous puzzle which resolves to one location and put a different set of coords in the reviewer note. Put a cache at both locations. See which one gets found and by whom.

 

:anicute:

I am aware of that situation. It was investigated thoroughly and the allegation was found to be without merit.

 

The fact that the local cachers would go to that length to try and "catch" the reviewer at cheating tells me a lot.

 

Do you have anything else, apart from the same tired old stories?

Share this post


Link to post

CR & RK,

 

You're painting with too broad of a brush, which is where I think the objection comes from (I know it does for me). The stroke you are painting gets me splattered and I don't cheat on caches. In fact, if I go out for a cache with friends and know or remember something about the cache or the way it's hidden, I let them find it or stay out of the puzzle-solving part and just enjoy the hunt for the cache. Never do I (or have I) load extra waypoints for the stages of any cache, except my own. :anicute:

 

You can put a cache with 2 sets of coords out if you want, but all it does is show that your reviewer is or is not cheating, but what about the rest of us? As has been said before, if you suspect your reviewer is cheating, report it, but don't get paint on me based on 3rd hand information regarding a reviewer in a state I have nothing to do with.

Share this post


Link to post

Folks need to realize that once a cacher becomes a Reviewer, thier entire perspective towards the game changes.

 

Yep, it's like seeing hotdogs being made.

 

:anicute:

 

TOO funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Otherwise, it's just a bunch of hot air.

 

No different than saying reviewers are infallible.

 

But, I suppose you're not going to say no reviewer has ever abused their power, right? You can't and be able to keep a shred of respect. Nor can you admit to a reviewer being reprimanded or removed for abuse of powers because that would then be admitting to RK's assertion and prove him right, and prove the OP's concerns are valid.

 

As far as I'm concerned the very first response in this post answered the OP's question and he did it without a "how dare you" attitude.

Share this post


Link to post

Folks need to realize that once a cacher becomes a Reviewer, thier entire perspective towards the game changes.

 

Yep, it's like seeing hotdogs being made.

 

:wub:

 

TOO funny.

 

Thanks. I get them out there every once in a while.

 

:anicute:

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post

Corruption lies within everything, and it would be naive to say that not one reviewer has ever abused any of their powers. Of course, we can't blatantly point fingers, but I don't think that anyone intended to do so. So often does something posted by the OP become twisted into a downward spiral of posting in bad taste.

 

This battle can swing back and forth, and I really see no point. When you boil it down, you're fighting about a silly puzzle that gives you numbers so you can go be the first person to sign your name in an insignificant box in the woods. I don't have any respect for people going for the FTF's anyways, so what's the point to ridicule someone who would use their powers to cheat.

 

If someone chooses to spend their time aimlessly fighting over something as silly as a box in the woods, than maybe they should consider to give geocaching a break for a while and find a more relaxing hobby.

Share this post


Link to post

No different than saying reviewers are infallible.

 

Well heck yeah it's different.

 

Unfortunately unsubstantiated comments are like stinky foot cheese. If you're a cheese lover, like myself, you can appreciate the stinky cheeses since, once spread on a cracker, can have a certain unique flavor. However for most the stink is just overpowering so only the stinky message gets across.

 

Being insensed because of someone accusing you of something would be natural since you would hope to assume first that people have integrity. Spreading stinky foot cheese around just stinks up the place, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
I am aware of that situation.

 

Oh, really?

 

This is ironic is that I had just made that up and knew nothing about that which you refer. However, the sheer fact that is had actually happened, that folks really did suspect a reviewer of cheating to point of actually placing traps to catch them really says something.

 

Additionally, when even the big guy comes over to the forum he rarely visits to respond in his ever flippant way which is meant to belittle the poster, that as well says something. I think this has really struck a nerve. The posts in the hidden forum must be flying.

 

Interesting indeed.

Share this post


Link to post

This is ironic is that I had just made that up and knew nothing about that which you refer. However, the sheer fact that is had actually happened, that folks really did suspect a reviewer of cheating to point of actually placing traps to catch them really says something.

 

This is a good stinky cheese example. You actually don't know what he was referring to (nor do I - he posted a minute after me) yet you infer something that you have no right to infer.

 

I'm sick today and the stinky cheese analogy distracted me from the stuffy head. I got a few chuckles over imagining Lep with a big mustache too.

Share this post


Link to post

As a cache approver, they have access to all the coords to all multis and puzzle caches that they approve and publish. Soooo, the question is, do they take advantage of this knowledge under their real caching name? :rolleyes: Seems like a lot of temptation to me. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

The only interesting thing I see this OP doing is stirpot.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think anyone is saying that every cache reviewer is a model of pristine character. The part I'm trying to wrap my brain around is, "Why is this really a concern?" Do cache logs show that the known reviewers have an inordinately large number of FTF's on mystery/multi caches?

 

This feels too much like a strawman.

 

Bret

Share this post


Link to post
I got a few chuckles over imagining Lep with a big mustache too.

 

Well, now that you put that image in my head, that is funny.

Share this post


Link to post
I am aware of that situation.

 

Oh, really?

 

This is ironic is that I had just made that up and knew nothing about that which you refer. However, the sheer fact that is had actually happened, that folks really did suspect a reviewer of cheating to point of actually placing traps to catch them really says something.

 

Yep. As I said above, it says something about the people who went to those lengths. I was not the reviewer involved, although I've had my fair share of unjustified accusations of cheating. My favorite is that cacher X gets a lot of FTF's, so the ONLY possible explanation is that Keystone is feeding the information on new caches to cacher X to give them an unfair advantage. :rolleyes: It gets old after awhile, and sucks the fun out of geocaching for some of us. I rarely even try to find puzzle caches anymore, partly for that reason. I suck at math puzzles but excel at word and logic puzzles, yet I choose not to hunt any unless I am with at least one other geocacher as a witness to the fact that I actually completed the cache as designed. (And if you're obsessed enough to go check my finds, begin with the one in January where we screwed up the math and hiked more than a half mile out of our way.)

 

Additionally, when even the big guy comes over to the forum he rarely visits to respond in his ever flippant way which is meant to belittle the poster, that as well says something. I think this has really struck a nerve. The posts in the hidden forum must be flying.

 

Sorry to disappoint, but there's no discussion of this thread in our reviewer forum. There's nothing that needs private discussion. We don't need to come up with a strategy about how to cover up for Timmy the Cheater in State X, because none of us are aware of a Timmy the Cheater. If we were aware of a Timmy the Cheater, he'd be gone from the group by now, at our insistence.

 

Interesting indeed.

 

Nope, not really interesting at all. I think you're attracting all the posts simply because we take pride in our integrity.

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think anyone is saying that every cache reviewer is a model of pristine character.

 

Many times we wouldn't even know. How many places are like South Carolina where you don't know who the reviewer really is? I know that is a matter of conversation at each and every meeting I've been to since that has happened. Heck, folks have even suspected is was me. Now, ain't that a hoot!

Share this post


Link to post
I got a few chuckles over imagining Lep with a big mustache too.

 

Well, now that you put that image in my head, that is funny.

 

:rolleyes: I could post an old, old photo of me with a beard and mustache. I looked like the guy from the "Irish Spring" soap commercial... a salty sea captain with a bright red beard.

Share this post


Link to post

:rolleyes: I could post an old, old photo of me with a beard and mustache. I looked like the guy from the "Irish Spring" soap commercial... a salty sea captain with a bright red beard.

 

Sea_Captain_300.gif

Arr, your cache be smellier than

two-week old fish and stinky foot cheese.

 

Arrr.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm...

 

How about a hideous puzzle which resolves to one location and put a different set of coords in the reviewer note. Put a cache at both locations. See which one gets found and by whom.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Oddly enough, the rest of my usual caching group and I found ourselves in just this situation. The cache owner claimed to have lied to the reviewer regarding the actual location of the cache and the only way we could have found the container we did was by cheating. The validity of the claim was questionable since based on the math involved there were only seven possible locations it could possibly be located at, and the supposed 'trap' was at one of those spots.

 

Even more odd, when we did the cache a second time and finally located the number the cache owner intended folks to find instead of the one we thought we were supposed to use, it turned out to be the same digit and made of the same material. Since our answer for the final coordinates would have therefore been the same, where was the 'trap'?

 

I guess another way to look at this issue is to ask who do you trust, the local reviewer or the cache owner who may have an axe to grind? Different people are likely going to have different answers, depending on their personal views...

Share this post


Link to post

Jeez, people, lighten up! These people VOLUNTEER their time so that we can enjoy this game. That alone earns them a little automatic respect in my book.

 

While I think everyone realizes there is a possibility for abuse, it doesn't really occur much, if at all. The reviewers bristle at the accusation because it is unfair to make "general" statements which cast aspersions on the whole group.

 

By the way, I always suspected you guys had monkeys, but if they misbehave do you spank them?

 

Edit: Paragraph re-arrangement

Edited by Trinity's Crew

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think anyone is saying that every cache reviewer is a model of pristine character.

 

Many times we wouldn't even know. How many places are like South Carolina where you don't know who the reviewer really is? I know that is a matter of conversation at each and every meeting I've been to since that has happened. Heck, folks have even suspected is was me. Now, ain't that a hoot!

 

And its likely someone you know well and respect, but who chooses to remain in the closet, in part because of threads like this one.

Share this post


Link to post

...Since my first hand experience as a reviewer and being personal friends with many reviewers is that this is not a habit, and you admit that your accusations are based on rumor, I have no problem with disregarding your accusations and your rantings have no value to this conversation....

 

Moose Mob:

 

Thank you for your post.

 

Once again I must tell you that I made no accusations. I stated a fact. There are cases where the ethics of approvers have been called out as lacking. This is based on my first hand knoweldge. Some approvers are ethical. Some are not. This is not subject to debate. If no reviewer has ever lost their post or been forced to resign then you might have some legs to stand on. I have no doubt you know some good approvers. As do I. You should have no doubt that a few are no longer here. Does that mean that any one will cheat? No, but again I have first hand knowledge of one reviewer that was accused of exactly that. My ability to look into the matter was limited by being a user and not a mod/approver. When I looked into it I could not reach a conclustion as to if that was the case or not with the facts that I had and I gave them the benifit of the doubt and relayed that to the person asking my opinion on the issue.

 

The question posed in this thread wasn't if it was normal. Just if it happens.

 

Your opinion is based on the facts that you have. Mine is based on the facts that I have. Perhaps you should take the time to recognize that we have access to different but no less true facts. I have not dismissed your opinion as you have mine. But then I try to be fair and take in all information.

Share this post


Link to post

I for one trust my local approver, having seen no reason not to I will continue to do so. Even tho I don't alway agree with whats writen in the forms by the approvers/mods I still thank them for their time. I know without a doubt I could not do it.

Edited by MT CatRancher

Share this post


Link to post
And its likely someone you know well and respect, but who chooses to remain in the closet, in part because of threads like this one.

 

Verily, but that fact doesn't stop the talk at meets.

Share this post


Link to post
And its likely someone you know well and respect, but who chooses to remain in the closet, in part because of threads like this one.

 

Verily, but that fact doesn't stop the talk at meets.

I still can't believe that Sissy hasn't told you. Man, she is *good.*

Share this post


Link to post
And its likely someone you know well and respect, but who chooses to remain in the closet, in part because of threads like this one.

 

Verily, but that fact doesn't stop the talk at meets.

I still can't believe that Sissy hasn't told you. Man, she is *good.*

 

:D:rolleyes::smile::mad::P:P

Share this post


Link to post

...Since my first hand experience as a reviewer and being personal friends with many reviewers is that this is not a habit, and you admit that your accusations are based on rumor, I have no problem with disregarding your accusations and your rantings have no value to this conversation....

 

Moose Mob:

 

Thank you for your post.

 

Once again I must tell you that I made no accusations. I stated a fact. There are cases where the ethics of approvers have been called out as lacking. This is based on my first hand knoweldge. Some approvers are ethical. Some are not. This is not subject to debate. If no reviewer has ever lost their post or been forced to resign then you might have some legs to stand on. I have no doubt you know some good approvers. As do I. You should have no doubt that a few are no longer here. Does that mean that any one will cheat? No, but again I have first hand knowledge of one reviewer that was accused of exactly that. My ability to look into the matter was limited by being a user and not a mod/approver. When I looked into it I could not reach a conclustion as to if that was the case or not with the facts that I had and I gave them the benifit of the doubt and relayed that to the person asking my opinion on the issue.

 

The question posed in this thread wasn't if it was normal. Just if it happens.

 

Your opinion is based on the facts that you have. Mine is based on the facts that I have. Perhaps you should take the time to recognize that we have access to different but no less true facts. I have not dismissed your opinion as you have mine. But then I try to be fair and take in all information.

 

If it's fact and the reviewer in question is abusing thier position, then I beg of you to report this offense to Groundspeak and quit flinging mud in the forums. Unless your goal is to fling mud in the forums. Some folks complain for the sake of complaining.

Share this post


Link to post

I was just sitting and thinking. About 6 or 7 months ago, I was working a puzzle and came up with the coordinates and plotted it on a map. Based on my memory of reviewing the cache and mapping out the final location, I knew the coordinates were wrong. Whole different part of the state. I reworked the puzzle, found my error, and went to the right location.

 

Now was I cheating?

Share this post


Link to post
Now was I cheating?

 

I would go with no as it was probably outside the posted guideline about distance from listed coords to hiding spot...

Share this post


Link to post

I was just sitting and thinking. About 6 or 7 months ago, I was working a puzzle and came up with the coordinates and plotted it on a map. Based on my memory of reviewing the cache and mapping out the final location, I knew the coordinates were wrong. Whole different part of the state. I reworked the puzzle, found my error, and went to the right location.

 

Now was I cheating?

 

No.

 

There is no advantage in finding a cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I am just glad there are folks who will take the time and energy to serve as reviewers. As far as cheating goes, in the final analysis anyone who cheats has to live with the fact that they lack a certain amount of integrity. My thanks to all those who review and approve caches so I can enjoy finding them.

Share this post


Link to post

I was just sitting and thinking. About 6 or 7 months ago, I was working a puzzle and came up with the coordinates and plotted it on a map. Based on my memory of reviewing the cache and mapping out the final location, I knew the coordinates were wrong. Whole different part of the state. I reworked the puzzle, found my error, and went to the right location.

 

Now was I cheating?

 

No.

 

There is no advantage in finding a cache.

There's no advantage in finding a cache? Well, crud! I've just wasted my life! :rolleyes::smile:

 

/I know what you meant. I'm just tired and posting, which is always a bad thing. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post

 

There's no advantage in finding a cache? Well, crud! I've just wasted my life! :rolleyes::smile:

 

/I know what you meant. I'm just tired and posting, which is always a bad thing. :mad:

 

Advantage

 

the first point won in tennis after deuce (get it? I've been dropping hints for the last couple years and nobody even checks)

- to advantage : so as to produce a favorable impression or effect

 

Hell, I spelled out Elf Danach and that didn't do it.

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post

 

There's no advantage in finding a cache? Well, crud! I've just wasted my life! :rolleyes::smile:

 

/I know what you meant. I'm just tired and posting, which is always a bad thing. :P

 

Advantage

 

the first point won in tennis after deuce (get it? I've been dropping hints for the last couple years and nobody even checks)

- to advantage : so as to produce a favorable impression or effect

Since I have no idea what a deuce is in tennis, um... :mad: OK. I did know what you meant though. Just having some late night amusement.

Share this post


Link to post

Can a reviwer cheat? Yes. B)

Has a reviewer cheated? I don't know, but it could possibly have happened. B)

Will a reviewer cheat in the future? Maybe, but if I could see the future I think I'd much rather be playing the lottery. B)

Do I think that reviewers do cheat? No. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I was just sitting and thinking. About 6 or 7 months ago, I was working a puzzle and came up with the coordinates and plotted it on a map. Based on my memory of reviewing the cache and mapping out the final location, I knew the coordinates were wrong. Whole different part of the state. I reworked the puzzle, found my error, and went to the right location.

 

Now was I cheating?

 

1) Being a reviewer, and that you are supposed to be familar with the guidelines, I would not see this as "cheating" since you would know that "unless a good reason otherwise can be provided, the posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles away from the true cache location," so you would know the coordinates were questionable regardless of having plotted the cache. B) Not being a reviewer, that is the same conclusion I would come to (if the cache was in a different part of the state from the posted coordinates), and I would certainly check my puzzle-solution again. I do not see this as "cheating."

 

2) Goodness, who cares anyhow? Let us say I find that cache X by working the puzzle and coming up with the coordinates, and find the cache. Let us say you find the coordinates through the method you posted above. I could care a less how you worked the puzzle and checked for potential error in the solution - in fact, I would be happy for you, that you found the cache! Then again, I could care a less if you *did* user reviewer knowledge to find the cache.

 

3) Why do some people put so much emotional energy into this? Are there not more important things to fret about? I made a spoiler bookmark list of a series of puzzle caches that I created (called it something like "spoiler bookmark list" and the series name), and I caught quite a bit of negative email traffic for doing so (such as "this information does not belong here," "you obviously do not understand geocaching," "you are an evil person," blah blah blah). Now, if I was doing the series, I would have a sense of accomplishment for solving the puzzles and finding the caches. If others used the spoilers, what does it matter to me? I cache my way, they cache their way, we all found the caches (and the peasants rejoice). Why is this so BAD? By the way, what was my motive for providing spoilers? Well, they were very fine caches, and I placed them to be FOUND. Whether or not someone got personal satisfaction in solving the puzzle is up to them, not me.

 

Sigh. Much to do about nothing.

Share this post


Link to post

I wub my cache monkey. She's so nice! I named her "CCCooperAgency."

We saw her today. Sue walked with Lynn and Mocadeki today in the early AM while they (Lynn and Carl) hunted a few of our backcountry caches, and then both Lynn and Carl came by our house to get fitted up with borrowed Tyvek protective bunny suits, powered respirators and portable radiation monitors for their stage three excursion at Psycho Urban Cache #9 (the one that ends at an abandoned nuclear reactor). . .

This is terrific news. I am glad to be able to log my "ghost find" without exposing myself to radiation hazards. I'm sure my monkey spelled my name right in the logbook. I sent her a new rubber stamp for Christmas.

Anyways, thanks for the cache. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it, had I been there.

 

You wrote: "...thanks for the cache. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it, had I been there."

Ahem! :)B)

I must remember that line and use it for all my fraudulent find claims. B)B)

 

Well, here are a few fotos of your trained monkey Lynn (CCCA) and Carl (Mocadeki) suited up yesterday during their training and practice runs for the stage 3 excursion at Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations

 

DCP_0258-1.jpg

 

DCP_0259-1.jpg

 

DSCN1616-1.jpg

 

The device (aside from the GPSr in Lynn's hand) which they are holding in their hands is a portable radiation monitor. They told us that they had much fun! Isn't geocaching exciting? :)B)

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team

Share this post


Link to post
You wrote: "...thanks for the cache. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it, had I been there."

Ahem! :)B)

I must remember that line and use it for all my fraudulent find claims. B)B)

 

When I log PUC#9 I'll log:

 

gunaxf sbe gur pnpur. V'z fher V jbhyq unir rawblrq vg, unq V orra gurer.

 

That way it doesn't get caught in your filters. :)

Share this post


Link to post

With all the innuendo about cheating reviewrs flying around, I'll share my story. I hid a cache not too long ago that piqued the interest of our local reviewer. Rather than read all the reviewer notes, the answers to the puzzle, and the coords for the various stages, she emailed me stating that she'd be interested in doing this cache sometime, so she was removing herself from the review process. She had another reviewer from well out of the area review my cache.

 

My story isn't third hand, implied, innuendo, or rumor. It's 100% true. And while I obviously can't speak for every reviewer on the planet, I will vouch for the integrity of MissPlaced. Does cheating by reviewers happen? It could, but I'll bet it doesn't happen much, if at all. Does it worry me one way or the other? No. MY reviewer doesn't cheat on her finds, nor does she play the FTF game. In fact, unlike many others, she doesn't even have an extrordinarily high find count. Questioning the integrity of reviewers in general is, to put it mildly, insulting. If there's a specific problem with a specific person, report it to Groundspeak. But don't try to cast doubt on a whole group of people unless you're able to back up your accusations with some sort of proof.

Share this post


Link to post

With all the innuendo about cheating reviewrs flying around, I'll share my story. I hid a cache not too long ago that piqued the interest of our local reviewer. Rather than read all the reviewer notes, the answers to the puzzle, and the coords for the various stages, she emailed me stating that she'd be interested in doing this cache sometime, so she was removing herself from the review process. She had another reviewer from well out of the area review my cache.

 

My story isn't third hand, implied, innuendo, or rumor. It's 100% true. And while I obviously can't speak for every reviewer on the planet, I will vouch for the integrity of MissPlaced. Does cheating by reviewers happen? It could, but I'll bet it doesn't happen much, if at all. Does it worry me one way or the other? No. MY reviewer doesn't cheat on her finds, nor does she play the FTF game. In fact, unlike many others, she doesn't even have an extrordinarily high find count. Questioning the integrity of reviewers in general is, to put it mildly, insulting. If there's a specific problem with a specific person, report it to Groundspeak. But don't try to cast doubt on a whole group of people unless you're able to back up your accusations with some sort of proof.

 

MissPlaced is a favorite of mine. I have cached with her and she is one of the reviewers who's count is close to mine. It is not uncommon for the puzzle fans in the reviewers to ask someone else to do the listing so they can work the puzzle. They get to have fun too.

Edited by CO Admin

Share this post


Link to post
It is not uncommon for the puzzle fans in the reviewers to ask someone else to do the listing so they can work the puzzle. They get to have fun too.

 

Well, as a cache reviewer I judge the cache location based on doing a copy/paste of the final cache coords into a firefox/greasemonkey script that displays a list of nearest caches with distance to the new cache, and the Groundspeak map. I'm not really all that cognizant of where the cache is beyond that, and have no trouble forgetting the location months later when I finally get around to doing the cache myself.

 

If a puzzle is involved I don't ask for an explanation of how it works, just want to see those coords to review the cache. If the cache is near me I've been seriously aggravated by having the solution described to me in a "note to reviewer". I don't want to know how to solve it, I want to figure it out on my own!

 

I don't know if this would be considered cheating, but I have adopted a few puzzle techniques (with permission) that I've spotted on caches I've reviewed in other parts of the world, and done my own cache using that puzzle.

 

I think you'll find that the cache reviewers have given up on being FTF on a cache since since they've become cache reviewers. In fact we've had some recent cases where new reviewers were needed for certain geographic areas, we've approached experienced and well respected geocachers to ask if they would be interested in being a volunteer reviewer and been told, "thanks but no thanks, that would cramp my style too much...

 

~erik~

 

edited to fix typo

Edited by erik88l-r

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...