Jump to content

Cache 'disapprovers' & The Non-local Approving Trend...


GeoNap

Recommended Posts

Hello all! I haven't posted in a while, but felt motivated enough to do so after reading the post on the cache page I will list in a minute. Basically I just wanted to climb up on my soapbox for a minute and complain (or at least voice my opinion) on the way geocaching (in general) has been headed. Specifically I am referring to some of the geocaching.com attitude.

 

I have recently seen a trend of geocaching volunteers become cache 'disapprovers' as opposed to 'approvers.' While geocaching is obviously growing by leaps and bounds I think the geocaching.com site is losing touch with some of its earliest and most adamant supporters. I wanted to 'speak out' before I was completely 'commercialized' out of geocaching.

 

Anyhow... this is a response I made to an older post regarding a non-local cache 'disapprover'... but I think it makes a good point:

 

Example of non-local cache disapprover...

 

Besides, it's a NW cache... an awesome one... I am tired of seeing caches disabled because 'new' cachers can't drive by it and reach out the window to pick it up (here's a hint, if it's a 4 or 5 star you may have to go back and look more than once)!

 

Even more so though I am tired of non-local cache 'disapprovers.' I think cache approvers should be local and at least have a clue of the general area... either THAT or at least do NOT let non-local 'disapprovers' kill good caches.

 

Anyway... climbing down off my soapbox! Good to see you all again! :mad:

Link to comment

I don't see a problem with this.

 

The area is closed (although it may reopen later this year) and the cache is temporarily unavailable.

 

The approver didn't archive it and only made it temporarily unavailable. It has been allowed to stay in this state for much longer than would normally be allowed almost two years now.

 

Since it is only marked TA when the area is once again open to hikers the owner can remove the status without interference.

Link to comment

It does bring up the question though, do we have enough 'local' reviewers for the activity we have in this area these days?

 

This is nothing against Team Misguided and PNWAdmin, they do a terriffic job!!! given all that they are asked to do, but everyone has "RT" issues to deal with, especially if they have families.

 

Without actually counting, I'd guesstimate that we get an average of 20-30 new caches approved in the Washington area a week, and that doesn't include AK, OR and ID (and any other states they review for that I don't know about). I've recently seen Max Cacher and another reviewer (whos name I cannot remember this morning) reviewing and approving caches for our area.

 

This also does not include reviewing the existing caches that may need attention or archival.

 

Do we maybe need another local reviewer/approver?

Link to comment

Short story:

 

Reviewers review and publish caches. Seekers assume all risks of seeking Owners all risks of owning. Groundspeak does not assume those risks (and they shouldn't) so reviewers should not make that judgment. There are times when a cache listing needs to be archived. Dire emergency and land owner request being one of them.

 

However in most cases reviewers should be working through the cache owner. To do otherwise is bad form.

 

Ignoring all that, if volunteers start assessing a caches safety and acting on it they risk Groundspeak assuming certaian liabilites that belong with the seeker.

 

There is a balance between owner, seeker, and lister and it's not such an easy thing. In spite of all that common courtesy does apply, and the reviewer said as much on the cache page though hopefully they said it better in a private email.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Y'all are rehashing an issue from 2004. Normally a reviewer does not stray outside their own territory to disable caches, and the situation was handled at that time per the prior thread linked to above.

 

The discussion is somewhat ironic, in that the volunteer ranks in the Pacific Northwest have been reinforced considerably since 2004 by highly capable reviewers who reside within the areas where they review and publish caches. In other words, Allanon, your count is quite a bit short. :lol: Team Misguided and PNW Admin called out for help quite some time ago, and they've got it now.

 

EDIT to add that Max Cacher resides outside the area, but has been kind enough to step in and assist from time to time when one of your local volunteers has been on vacation, was recovering from an illness, etc. We back each other up so that we don't fall behind.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

Keystone, are you saying that Team Misguided and PNW Admin have help from out of the area reviewers like Max Cacher, or that we have another reviewer from this state now?

 

team BS

 

At least has been aproving cachies in oregon for a while

Edited by Suziq
Link to comment

About a year ago we were covering Oregon and Washington with help from PNWadmin. The volume in each state got to be enough that we asked for help. Oregon had grown to the point where they deserved a more local reviewer and Team B&S was added. That allowed us to focus more energy on Washington.

 

More recently we've had various Real Life things that have caused us to get help from out of area reviewers like Max Cacher, who's been a real lifesaver BTW. Things are settling down at home now that the weather is heating up. Things should be back to normal, what ever that is, soon.

Link to comment

Been reviewing caches in the area on and off since April 2003 when ever asked to help out, we usually don’t go to a different area unless there is a need.

 

We keep good records of where caches are not allowed, or with restrictions in an area so we can remain constant with the review process, but this does not mean I will not mess up every now and then, but we do try very hard.

 

Have also found a few caches within 10 miles of the one at the top on this thread, its not like we don’t know a little about the area

 

On a side note, by the luck of the draw there are a few cache owners that I have reviewed all of their cache hides over time, and they don’t know the difference and think I’m their regular reviewer and that’s cool.

 

Will be back when asked

 

Max Cacher

Link to comment

This thread got me thinking about how often we'd been using the 'Phone a friend' option lately. The out of area reviewers are always ready to jump in and help out in a pinch and we are eternally grateful for their help. (Max, if we ever are in the same place I owe you a beer or two!!!!)

 

But we needed a better long term solution and for that someone more local was needed. The existing local reviewers had a brief pow wow on the subject and I am pleased to announce that we have added Cascade Reviewer to our group. Cascade Reviewer will not have a specific area but will help us out when things get busy and/or when one of the full time reviewers take a well needed vacation.

 

I'm sure you'll start to see posts from him soon and maybe a note on a cache page or two. So let me be the first to say

 

Welcome Cascade Reviewer, now get to work!!!!!

Link to comment

This thread got me thinking about how often we'd been using the 'Phone a friend' option lately. The out of area reviewers are always ready to jump in and help out in a pinch and we are eternally grateful for their help. (Max, if we ever are in the same place I owe you a beer or two!!!!)

 

But we needed a better long term solution and for that someone more local was needed. The existing local reviewers had a brief pow wow on the subject and I am pleased to announce that we have added Cascade Reviewer to our group. Cascade Reviewer will not have a specific area but will help us out when things get busy and/or when one of the full time reviewers take a well needed vacation.

 

I'm sure you'll start to see posts from him soon and maybe a note on a cache page or two. So let me be the first to say

 

Welcome Cascade Reviewer, now get to work!!!!!

 

Allow me to be the first to suck up... :P

 

Welcome, Cascade Reviewer! I'm looking forward to seeing your green lights on my new caches. :)

Link to comment

Hello!

 

Thanks for the welcome. I'm glad to be able to help the Reviewers in this area, and look forward to helping the Geocachers in the NorthWest participate in this great sport! :P

 

Cool... I know you must be a local. I have no idea who you are, but maybe that is best! It will be fun to wonder and guess!

 

Thanks for helping us out!

Link to comment

Step aside, Prying Pandora and Ms WD, it's my turn. :P

 

Hi Cascade Reviewer, I just wanted to tell you I love your avatar! Also, I'm thankful for your willingness to step up and help our overworked (and often underappreciated) reviewers. It's a thankless, but necessary job. Without peeps like Team Misguided, PNWAdmin and yourself to review and publish caches us cachers would spend less time in the fresh air and more time in front of the pcs, breathing stagnant air and posting in the forums. And we all know LESS POSTING and MORE CACHING makes for a happy cacher.

 

A big thanks-for-everything-you-do, from us, to our entire reviewing team,

Sassy

Link to comment

Hello!

 

Thanks for the welcome. I'm glad to be able to help the Reviewers in this area, and look forward to helping the Geocachers in the NorthWest participate in this great sport! :laughing:

 

Kewl.. I better start hiding caches again. I have a really neat cache all ready to go that I won at the spring fling.

Link to comment

Hello!

 

Thanks for the welcome. I'm glad to be able to help the Reviewers in this area, and look forward to helping the Geocachers in the NorthWest participate in this great sport! :huh:

 

Kewl.. I better start hiding caches again. I have a really neat cache all ready to go that I won at the spring fling.

 

Guess my Shelton cache marathon is going to grow a bit larger. I still havent had a chance to spend a good day there. I was going to hit the 101-night cache after Spring Fling but the truck developed an electical problem on the way home. Had to skip it. :laughing:

 

And Welcome Cascade Reviewer! Hope we keep you busy......that means lots O caches to find!

Edited by mudsneaker
Link to comment

Short story:

 

Reviewers review and publish caches. Seekers assume all risks of seeking Owners all risks of owning. Groundspeak does not assume those risks (and they shouldn't) so reviewers should not make that judgment. There are times when a cache listing needs to be archived. Dire emergency and land owner request being one of them.

 

To get back to the origional issue...I could not disagree with Renegade Knight more right now It used to be very simple getting caches approved during the time that he was refering to. Now, "cache dis-approvers" is a more accurate label. The last four caches i tried to get approved, all were a exercise in patience and persistence (one that is right behind my office is still in the approval que and i cannot get approved because it is not "local" to me...). By putting such strict review process in place, Groundspeak has defacto assumed control and risk wither their legalese admits it or not.

 

To you Groundspeak types and approvers...please remember this is only a game. Try not to alienate the players.

Link to comment

Short story:

 

Reviewers review and publish caches. Seekers assume all risks of seeking Owners all risks of owning. Groundspeak does not assume those risks (and they shouldn't) so reviewers should not make that judgment. There are times when a cache listing needs to be archived. Dire emergency and land owner request being one of them.

 

To get back to the origional issue...I could not disagree with Renegade Knight more right now It used to be very simple getting caches approved during the time that he was refering to. Now, "cache dis-approvers" is a more accurate label. The last four caches i tried to get approved, all were a exercise in patience and persistence (one that is right behind my office is still in the approval que and i cannot get approved because it is not "local" to me...). By putting such strict review process in place, Groundspeak has defacto assumed control and risk wither their legalese admits it or not.

 

To you Groundspeak types and approvers...please remember this is only a game. Try not to alienate the players.

Which brings up an interesting question and possiblity...is there a way to have more than one set of "home" coordinates? Home, Work, Daycare?...all the places that are on your 'normal' travel route?

Link to comment

Short story:

 

Reviewers review and publish caches. Seekers assume all risks of seeking Owners all risks of owning. Groundspeak does not assume those risks (and they shouldn't) so reviewers should not make that judgment. There are times when a cache listing needs to be archived. Dire emergency and land owner request being one of them.

 

To get back to the origional issue...I could not disagree with Renegade Knight more right now It used to be very simple getting caches approved during the time that he was refering to. Now, "cache dis-approvers" is a more accurate label. The last four caches i tried to get approved, all were a exercise in patience and persistence (one that is right behind my office is still in the approval que and i cannot get approved because it is not "local" to me...). By putting such strict review process in place, Groundspeak has defacto assumed control and risk wither their legalese admits it or not.

 

To you Groundspeak types and approvers...please remember this is only a game. Try not to alienate the players.

Maybe you should post this in the South and Southwest Forum, since your Arizona cache submission is 975 miles away from your home coordinates in Oregon. You can expect to be quizzed about that no matter where your volunteer cache reviewer is located.

 

I have two stacks of mail about caches hidden a great distance from a cacher's normal caching area. One is from the local finders, complaining about unmaintained caches. The other is from people who are trying to hide caches hundreds of miles away from home. My goal is to keep the first stack of mail smaller than the second. :mad:

Link to comment

It's those pesky facts again. They always seem to get in the way of a good complaint.

 

Yes those pesky facts...but there are two sides of the story. For the full exchange, look at the cache notes (I did not include private e-mails):

 

April 12 by Artemis (1 found)

Hello,

 

Recently we've been experiencing problems with the performance of the reviewer features on the Geocaching.com website. One possible reason for this is the length of the list of caches that are "on hold" for one reason or another. Groundspeak has asked the volunteers to temporarily disable those submissions which have been "on hold" for an extended period of time.

 

If you wish to proceed with this cache, please enter an "enable this cache" log with comments on the status of your submission. Your page will then be automatically returned to the active review queue.

 

Thank you

Artemis

 

NOTE: Please do not log any travel bugs in an unlisted cache. Travel Bugs dropped in unlisted caches can give away your cache location before it is listed. Simply drop the TB into the cache after listing has been done.

 

NOTE: do not reply by leaving a note on this cache. I am not notified if a note is posted to this cache. If you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail Artemis from the log there or email me directly at Artemis.approver@gmail.com, referencing the cache URL's, or GCxxxx number.

 

[view this log on a separate page]

 

March 26 by Artemis (1 found)

Hello

 

I received your email.

 

Starting from the bottom let’s challenge the arguments..."

 

I am sorry you feel that you must challenge arguments, because there is no argument here. The guidelines clearly state vacation caches will not be allowed.. You live in Oregon, to place a geocache in Arizona I simply require per the guidelines, the name of a geocacher who is a local that will maintain it in your absence.

 

Thank you

Artemis

 

NOTE: Please do not log any travel bugs in an unlisted cache. Travel Bugs dropped in unlisted caches can give away your cache location before it is listed. Simply drop the TB into the cache after listing has been done.

 

NOTE: do not reply by leaving a note on this cache. I am not notified if a note is posted to this cache. If you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail Artemis from the log there or email me directly at Artemis.approver@gmail.com, referencing the cache URL's, or GCxxxx number.

 

[view this log on a separate page]

 

March 25 by nmartin (1078 found)

 

(4) “Since I noticed you planned to host an event in Oregon in April, it seems obvious you are not going to be in the Arizona area for an extended period?”

 

The event cache is actually sponsored by SAGA (www.oregonsaga.com), I am a active (founding) member. It is a cache maintenance event to repair and replace caches after local flooding. COME ON, THIS SHOULD NOT COUNT AGAINST ME, IT SHOULD GIVE ME BROWNIE POINTS FOR BEING A GOOD AND CONSIDERATE CACHER BY TAKING CHARGE AND ORGANIZING CACHE MAINTENANCE.

 

(5) “Looking at some of your past hides I see:

hidden 18 Aug 05 Golden Idol (GCQ6EM) archived 28 Sep 05

hidden 14 Aug 05 Koishi (GCQ560) archived 11 Nov 05

hidden 25 Jun 05 Beaver State (GCPEV6) archived 07 Jul 05”

 

hidden 18 Aug 05 Golden Idol (GCQ6EM) archived 28 Sep 05, This was a special case. The cache was removed by a local cacher. Another local cacher’s (very respected) daughter was killed in a car wreak on the way to the prom very near this spot last year(I know this sounds like a sob story, but it is real). I had replaced the cache with the “plundered” cache before I was told before I was told that the local cachers wanted to put a memorial cache here. (yes…I replaced a cache when it came up missing…Bad nate, bad nate!!) The cachers who’s daughter died are not ready for us to put in a memorial cache yet, so the "plundered" cache is still there.

 

hidden 14 Aug 05 Koishi (GCQ560) archived 11 Nov 05. This cache was a small rock in a park. The city clean-up crew found it and being mostly inmates, converted it to a drug stash. The cache was archived by me because of that, and replaced with a mini-micro “fat yellow frog”. Did I not do the right thing here?

 

hidden 25 Jun 05 Beaver State (GCPEV6) archived 07 Jul 05. Yea, this was a dumb ideal. Put $5 worth of the new Oregon quarters in a altiods box and not expect it to come up missing?

 

(6) "To list this cache on Groundspeak …well as the final coordinates of the puzzle cache."

 

The final coord’s are as posted, the puzzle is how to retrive the cache.

 

“The cache is a medium size plastic jar with a large metal washer on the lid. How will you retrive it?” I would use a magnet, long stick, and some duct tape, but that is just me.

 

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

 

[upload an image for this log]

March 25 by nmartin (1078 found)

Starting from the bottom let’s challenge the arguments:

 

(1) "Placing Caches on Vacation/Beyond Your Maintainable Distance”

 

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be approved.

 

I am not on vacation…this is where I work. I am part of the senior management team (Director of Sales) for the manufacturing plant next door. This is also where I cache as is shown by the finds. Later it is stated that only 9 of the last 250 finds since Oct’05 were in Az (I count 15 including DNF’s). I have a hard time see where this is negative. To me it says that I am active in Az, and I am there frequently.

 

(2) “It is not uncommon for areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for virtual or multi-caches to be moved or removed, etc. You must be able to react to negative cache logs and investigate the location quickly. Please be responsible.”

 

“So when someone logs that a bullet is inside the container, you will fly back from Oregon to remove it?”

 

Quickly is a relative term. Most people I know inactivate a cache until they can investigate, even when they live close-by. They then get to it when they can. This is a game, please remember that. I work ½ mile away and I am there several time a month.

 

(3) “The territory in which a geocacher is able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from one person to the next. An active geocacher who regularly visits areas hundreds of miles apart can demonstrate their ability to maintain a cache 100 miles from home. A geocacher whose previous finds and hides are all within 25 miles of their home would likely not see their cache listed if placed 250 miles away from their home.”

 

Duh…this is what I am saying

 

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

 

[upload an image for this log]

March 21 by Artemis (1 found)

The reason I am requesting the local cache reviewer aside from the distance to your home is the guideline about cache permanence:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) may not be approved. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

Looking at some of your past hides I see:

hidden 18 Aug 05 Golden Idol (GCQ6EM) archived 28 Sep 05

hidden 14 Aug 05 Koishi (GCQ560) archived 11 Nov 05

hidden 25 Jun 05 Beaver State (GCPEV6) archived 07 Jul 05

 

Thank you

Artemis

 

NOTE: Please do not log any travel bugs in an unlisted cache. Travel Bugs dropped in unlisted caches can give away your cache location before it is listed. Simply drop the TB into the cache after listing has been done.

 

NOTE: do not reply by leaving a note on this cache. I am not notified if a note is posted to this cache. If you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail Artemis from the log there or email me directly at Artemis.approver@gmail.com, referencing the cache URL's, or GCxxxx number.

 

[view this log on a separate page]

 

March 21 by Artemis (1 found)

 

Hello Nate

 

I received your email:

I take it you did not see that i stated the cache is right behind where i work.

 

I work for a silicon wafer manufacturer that has it's USA headquarters in Phoenix. and although i live in Oregon, I travel to Phoenix several times each month. Cache maintenance will not be a issue.

 

Nate

 

I did see that note and I am still asking that a local cacher be available to assist with maintaining of the cache because every cache you have is in Oregon and you are hosting an event in Oregon next month, this indicates that you will be in Oregon and not Arizona. So when someone logs that a bullet is inside the container, you will fly back from Oregon to remove it?

 

There are hundreds of cachers in the Phoenix area, I am sure you can get one of them to assist you with maintaining your cache while you are not in the state.

 

I also noticed your finds of 9 out of the last 250 in Arizona since October 2005.

 

To list this cache on Groundspeak I am going to need the name of a local cacher who will maintain it for you in your absense as well as the final coordinates of the puzzle cache.

 

Since January 20th, it has been possible to use the "Additional Waypoints" function to store intermediate/final waypoints in a standardized way -- see (visit link) . Could I please ask you to add your extra waypoints in this way.

Anything that is "secret," like the final location of the cache, can be hidden from view by anyone except you as the cache owner, and site admins/volunteers. Waypoints such as parking coordinates can be viewed by anyone.

 

Thank you

Artemis

 

NOTE: Please do not log any travel bugs in an unlisted cache. Travel Bugs dropped in unlisted caches can give away your cache location before it is listed. Simply drop the TB into the cache after listing has been done.

 

NOTE: do not reply by leaving a note on this cache. I am not notified if a note is posted to this cache. If you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail Artemis from the log there or email me directly at Artemis.approver@gmail.com, referencing the cache URL's, or GCxxxx number.

 

[view this log on a separate page]

 

March 21 by Artemis (1 found)

Hi. I am the volunteer cache reviewer for Arizona. I am reviewing your Reach for the cache, Macgyver! Reborn submission.

 

According to your profile, you live approximately 970 miles from this cache location. Although the site at one time listed caches outside of a hider's area, it no longer does so after cache maintenance concerns arose. The guidelines for listing state:

 

"Placing Caches on Vacation/Beyond Your Maintainable Distance

 

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be approved. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. It is not uncommon for areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for virtual or multi-caches to be moved or removed, etc. You must be able to react to negative cache logs and investigate the location quickly. Please be responsible. This guideline applies to all types of caches including virtual caches.

 

The territory in which a geocacher is able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from one person to the next. An active geocacher who regularly visits areas hundreds of miles apart can demonstrate their ability to maintain a cache 100 miles from home. A geocacher whose previous finds and hides are all within 25 miles of their home would likely not see their cache listed if placed 250 miles away from their home.

 

If you have special circumstances, please describe these on your cache page or in a note to the approver. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page."

 

Because of your distance from the cache area, I am putting this cache on hold. Please email me and let me know if you have made arrangements for this cache to be maintained by a local geocacher.

 

Since I noticed you planned to host an event in Oregon in April, it seems obvious you are not going to be in the Arizona area for an extended period?

 

Thank you

Artemis

 

NOTE: Please do not log any travel bugs in an unlisted cache. Travel Bugs dropped in unlisted caches can give away your cache location before it is listed. Simply drop the TB into the cache after listing has been done.

 

NOTE: do not reply by leaving a note on this cache. I am not notified if a note is posted to this cache. If you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail Artemis from the log there or email me directly at Artemis.approver@gmail.com, referencing the cache URL's, or GCxxxx number.

 

[view this log on a separate page]

 

March 20 by nmartin (1078 found)

Left a few personal coins here (including a new one never before left in a cache) and a couple of coin replicants.

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

 

[upload an image for this log]

March 20 by nmartin (1078 found)

I refound this cache about a month ago behind where i work. The last find prior to me was 1.5yrs ago. The cache was in good condition although archived. I restocked, and the cache is ready for a new life. The origional owner is no longer active in geocaching.

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

Link to comment

So basically, what i am saying here is that no good deed goes unpunished by the current crop of cache dis-approvers

 

When I submit a cache I always have to check the boxes that say I have read and understand the guidelines. I assume you did so as well. So the restriction on vacation caches should not have come as a surprise. But I don't see any indication in the notes you posted that you addressed this issue up-front.

 

When the reviewer questioned your ability to maintain the submission, you stated you are in the state frequently. But I did the same thing I imagine the Artemis did, I looked at your finds in the area. Unless I missed something, you went caching in Arizona for a day over two months ago, and then prior to that went caching for another day two months earlier still. That doesn't particularly support your statements. You haven't demonstrated your ability to maintain a cache in Arizona, as the guidelines require.

 

Perhaps you are perfectly capable of doing so, but how the heck is the reviewer supposed to determine that given the information at hand? Given the number of cachers in Arizona, surely you can find someone who lives near the location of your cache and will be willing to help out.

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...