The Power Abuser Reviewers

July 6, 2006

We have a Reviewer down south (GA) that wants to play God with this game.

He has give me trouble every time I've had dealings with him, except once.

I put him so high on a pedestal he couldn't refuse. But I don't think that

we (the ones that are not in their little click) should have to get on our

hands and knees and beg, just to get a cache published. Especially when

we know that we are within the guidelines. The little click can put a

cache anywhere they choose legal (public) or illegal (private property

without permission), which I've seen a number of times and they get

published. Someone like him makes you want to give it up, but we enjoy the

game and will not let some twerp like him cause that. Can you use another

reviewer? If not, I guess I'm done hiding caches until he quits or dies.

Someone on top really needs to take a long look at the reviewers, they

abuse their power for their own amusement. <_<

3.5k · July 6, 2006

Post your proposed cache here in the forums if you have a beef with your local reviewer. Let your peers decide if its worthy or not.

20.7k · July 6, 2006

Ummm, 'god' and 'clique'. Otherwise, carry on with your rant.

<_<

2.2k · July 6, 2006

From looking at your recent cache submission, there doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary--I would have posted the exact same note on it. In cases where permission is necessary, once you obtain it, the cache can be listed. Without that permission, the cache won't get published.

What exactly is the issue you have with your reviewer?

3.9k · July 6, 2006

Gosh, I personally know 3 reviewers in Ga and they're all fantastic people. I'd be surprised any of them would behave this way.

Mtn-man and Erik have both worked with me in the past on caches that I thought might be questionable. I've told them what I had in mind and they've given me a thumbs up or have pointed out something that would keep it from being approved. If you're uncertain about a cache, running it by a reviewer *before* you go to any trouble of making/hiding/submitting a cache is definitely the way to go.

GPSfun is also a very nice guy that has approved caches of mine. I've gone caching with him and have had the pleasure to talk with him a little and he also seems like a very fair and down to earth guy.

Post the details of your cache here in this thread and let us see it. Tell us what aspect of the cache the reviewer had an issue with and I'll bet you'll find it's not the reviewer that is being stubborn.

July 6, 2006

I've had some contact with mtn-man here in Louisiana and have never seen anything questionable. I agree with the others, we need more details, not just vague accusations.

Z

2.7k · July 6, 2006

So far, I have to agree with the others. The reviewers SEEM like nice folks, I've never had an issue with my (two) caches being approved as I worked hard to make sure they worked within teh guidelines.

Perhaps you should post some examples of these 'bad' caches, and be sure to double check tomake sure they are not grandfathered after a guideline change.

3.5k · July 6, 2006

From the Guidelines for Placing a Cache:

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that “pushes the envelope” to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Geocaching.com before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas. If, after exchanging emails with the reviewer, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, your next option is to ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum. Sometimes a second opinion from someone else who has seen a similar situation can help in suggesting a way for the cache to be listed. Next, you should feel free to post a message in the “Geocaching Topics” section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be posted, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the listing and your cache may be unarchived. Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an e-mail with complete details, waypoint name (GC****) and links to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com.

I'm not exactly sure where your rant about "Power Abuser Reviewers" and playing god fits in with this paragraph. If you can provide details about the cache and why you think it needs to be listed then please do. Let's keep the name calling out of it and get to the details, please.

Thanks,

Bret

3.9k · July 6, 2006

I hope this wasn't a drive by bashing and we'll never see a reply, but I think it might be.

7.2k · July 6, 2006

I've not ever had any problems with the reviewers out of GA when they've step up and reviewed our caches. In fact, I was wanting to go to GW3 in Jax specifically to met one particular gruff old fart.

...and some of the nice ones, too. <_<

20.7k · July 6, 2006

Bret has to take all the fun out of perfectly angsty threads. Thank you soooo much.

On topic, I've never had an issue with Erik and never really dealt with any other GA reviewers (I don't think).

Give us the dirt on the specific cache or kill off this thread, if you don't mind.

Edited July 6, 2006 by sbell111

21.9k · July 6, 2006

There is really no use appealing the cache archival in the forums. If the land manager (Georgia State Parks) has a permission policy, Geocaching.com will not publish caches without a statement by the cache owner that they've followed the policy. It is as cut and dried a situation as any decision we make as cache reviewers.

It is quite common for cache owners who don't follow the land manager rules to misdirect their anger at the cache reviewer. "Don't shoot the messenger." We do not invent permit policies. Our volunteer work would be much easier if there weren't permit policies. But they are there, and so we check for compliance with the ones we know about. If you are upset because a permit is required, contact the Georgia State Parks or your State Representative.

I think the OP owes an apology to his reviewer. Erik was one of the earliest volunteer cache reviewers. Most of the rest of us, including me, learned the ropes from old timers like Erik.

21.9k · July 6, 2006

He has give me trouble every time I've had dealings with him, except once.

In re-reading the OP, I think he's saying that ALL of his caches (except one) have had problems with the power-abusing reviewer. Let's look at the facts for the caches other than the recent State Park situation that triggered this thread:

1. A three-stage multicache, published without any questions or comments from the reviewer.

2. A virtual cache, submitted in April -- six months after the site stopped considering this type of cache.

3. A cache hidden less than 528 feet away from an existing cache, where Erik worked with the owner on some alternative ways in which the cache could be published. It did get published.

4. A cache adopted by the OP after Erik gave him instructions on how to use the adoption feature.

The only problem I am seeing here is a demonstrated pattern of repeated listing guideline violations.

3.9k · July 6, 2006

The only problem I am seeing here is a demonstrated pattern of repeated listing guideline violations.

And the spelling errors in his post and on his cache pages.

21.9k · July 6, 2006

The only problem I am seeing here is a demonstrated pattern of repeated listing guideline violations.

And the spelling errors in his post and on his cache pages.

Erik is even tolerant of spelling errors.

It is only handicapped chinldren that bring out his mean streak. <_<

3.5k · July 6, 2006

He has give me trouble every time I've had dealings with him, except once.

In re-reading the OP, I think he's saying that ALL of his caches (except one) have had problems with the power-abusing reviewer. Let's look at the facts for the caches other than the recent State Park situation that triggered this thread:

1. A three-stage multicache, published without any questions or comments from the reviewer.

2. A virtual cache, submitted in April -- six months after the site stopped considering this type of cache.

3. A cache hidden less than 528 feet away from an existing cache, where Erik worked with the owner on some alternative ways in which the cache could be published. It did get published.

4. A cache adopted by the OP after Erik gave him instructions on how to use the adoption feature.

The only problem I am seeing here is a demonstrated pattern of repeated listing guideline violations.

DARN THAT ERIK! How long will the Geocaching community stand by while such blatant abuses continue?!?!?

<_<

38.2k · July 6, 2006

He has give me trouble every time I've had dealings with him, except once.

In re-reading the OP, I think he's saying that ALL of his caches (except one) have had problems with the power-abusing reviewer. Let's look at the facts for the caches other than the recent State Park situation that triggered this thread:

1. A three-stage multicache, published without any questions or comments from the reviewer.

2. A virtual cache, submitted in April -- six months after the site stopped considering this type of cache.

3. A cache hidden less than 528 feet away from an existing cache, where Erik worked with the owner on some alternative ways in which the cache could be published. It did get published.

4. A cache adopted by the OP after Erik gave him instructions on how to use the adoption feature.

The only problem I am seeing here is a demonstrated pattern of repeated listing guideline violations.

Maybe someone should start a thread about hiders who don't read the guidelines.

July 6, 2006

Maybe someone should start a thread about hiders who don't read the guidelines.

It's probably the biggest topic in the reviewer forum. <_<

July 6, 2006

I don't understand the controversy here. Aren't the Power Abuse Reviewers those kids that transform into the giant robot?

6.5k · July 6, 2006

I think I misspelled Erik's name in a reviewer note once and he held up the approval of my cache for a few hours in spite. <_<

2.3k · July 6, 2006

I've never had any problems with Erik or the other reviewers. If I've intended to have a questionable cache published, I've worked beforehand with him to work out any issues. Any time I have submitted a cache that he's had a question about, it's usually been because I forgot to post a reviewer note to let him know about something.

The biggest thing I have learned about getting caches published is communication, communication, communiction.

3.1k · July 6, 2006

We :rolleyes: our GA reviewers!!

July 6, 2006

Reviewers and Moderators are okay. :rolleyes:

I just wouldn't want any of them dating my daughter. :rolleyes:

7.2k · July 6, 2006

I've not ever had any problems with the reviewers out of GA when they've step up and reviewed our caches. In fact, I was wanting to go to GW3 in Jax specifically to met one particular gruff old fart.

...and some of the nice ones, too.

I'm not that old, am I?

I would have reviewed the caches in the same manner. You're lucky. You got the nice reviewer. Since I also review in GA, one of your alternatives would be me. You might be happier with the one the one you have been working with in the past. :rolleyes: I will be happy to ask Erik to forward them to me in the future if you would like.

3.9k · July 6, 2006

I've not ever had any problems with the reviewers out of GA when they've step up and reviewed our caches. In fact, I was wanting to go to GW3 in Jax specifically to met one particular gruff old fart.

...and some of the nice ones, too.

I'm not that old, am I?

I would have reviewed the caches in the same manner. You're lucky. You got the nice reviewer. Since I also review in GA, one of your alternatives would be me. You might be happier with the one the one you have been working with in the past. I will be happy to ask Erik to forward them to me in the future if you would like.

CR, Mtn-man is not as nasty in person as he seems on the forums, although he does resemble his avatar more than you'd expect.

2.7k · July 6, 2006

Reviewers and Moderators are okay.

I just wouldn't want any of them dating my daughter.

They don't go for the old ladies, Rec.

/Yeah, I went with an older than the hills joke. Sorry.

July 6, 2006

In fact, I was wanting to go to GW3 in Jax specifically to met one particular gruff old fart.

...and some of the nice ones, too.

I'm not that old, am I?

I noticed CR didn't say which reviewer was the "gruff old fart" and which were the "nice ones". So I wonder why you took credit? :rolleyes:

7.2k · July 6, 2006

I've not ever had any problems with the reviewers out of GA when they've step up and reviewed our caches. In fact, I was wanting to go to GW3 in Jax specifically to met one particular gruff old fart.

...and some of the nice ones, too.

I'm not that old, am I?

ROFL! :rolleyes:

July 6, 2006

I guess I'm coming with a member's outlook. I have had no problem with reviewers since joining more than a year ago. If we're asked about a cache we've hidden (and we have been asked), we promptly comply and answer. This is a listing service and there are rules/policies/regs/guidelines, (4 things that mean the same), that must be followed or no listing. Simple if you ask me. I'm in no click or group. 'Just your average cacher.

7.2k · July 6, 2006

In fact, I was wanting to go to GW3 in Jax specifically to met one particular gruff old fart.

...and some of the nice ones, too.

I'm not that old, am I?

I noticed CR didn't say which reviewer was the "gruff old fart" and which were the "nice ones". So I wonder why you took credit?

I gotta' be me Allen. I gotta' be me.

Mushtang... :rolleyes:

I know, I am always smiling, just like the puppymonster.

3.9k · July 6, 2006

Mushtang...

I know, I am always smiling, just like the puppymonster.

That's probably it. Or maybe it's the beard?

2k · July 6, 2006

What's that old rule?

"For each and every action there is an equal and opposite criticism."

I have never had an issue with a reviewer. Mind you, I've only published 36 caches myself. Have they all been approved right out of the gate? Nope. Has the reviewer ever come back and said "that's a little close to the factory that makes giant whirling blades that could cut heads off"? Well...no, but they did say one was too close to the railroad tracks -- then when I explained the fencing in the area they were quick to approve.

Work WITH your reviewer. They may be miles away from where you placed the cache, they may not have the same access to information you have. Give them the facts, anticipate their concerns.....magic will happen.

July 6, 2006

You guys are funny :rolleyes:

July 6, 2006

You guys are funny

What? We waited all day, asked for an example and this is the reply. I don't know your situation, I was wanting to help. Reviewers are a dedicated lot and as everyone has said ad nausium, you just have to work with them AND the guidelines. Keystone laid it out for you, there must be permission obtained from Georgia Parks before you can place a cache in their land. The same rules applied in Colorado and there are many caches legally placed in the parks there with full permission from the open space and park departments.

Z

July 6, 2006

I guess I'm coming with a member's outlook. I have had no problem with reviewers since joining more than a year ago. If we're asked about a cache we've hidden (and we have been asked), we promptly comply and answer. This is a listing service and there are rules/policies/regs/guidelines, (4 things that mean the same), that must be followed or no listing. Simple if you ask me. I'm in no click or group. 'Just your average cacher.

Actually even that isn't entirely correct. If there is a good reason to allow an exception to the guidlines they can be bent a little. I recently submitted two caches, a traditional and a multi, where the first stage of the multi was within 300 feet of the traditional and got them both approved. I simply explained to the reviewer that

1) The first stage was a micro whereas the traditional was a regular size (no confusion of which was which.)

2) The next nearest cache was half a mile away (no saturation issues.)

3) The park ranger had approved the locations.

4) The 300 feet was only the horizontal difference, there was also a 400 foot vertical differnce (which when you do the math actually puts the caches 500 feet apart, though I didn't mention that part.)

AR_kayaker

21.9k · July 6, 2006

You guys are funny

What do you mean, I'm funny?...You mean the way I talk? What?...Funny how? I mean, what's funny about it?...But I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? What do you mean, funny? Funny how? How'm I funny??... Tell me? Tell me what's funny!...

July 6, 2006

You guys are funny

What do you mean, I'm funny?...You mean the way I talk? What?...Funny how? I mean, what's funny about it?...But I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? What do you mean, funny? Funny how? How'm I funny??... Tell me? Tell me what's funny!...

:rolleyes: Gotta love one liners... oh wait.

July 7, 2006

Back on subject, provided the subject really is how to a geocache in a GA state Park.

As the geocacher who was first to put an approved physical geocache in a GA state park, I know permission can be gotten. Of course I had to talk to the head ranger on the phone, send emails and finally meet him at the park to discuss the actual location. All in all it took about 6 weeks. This was all done before I submitted it for review. The actual review was quickly done and the geocache published.

Now there were some geocaches put in GA state parks before me, but they didn't have permission and were removed by the park rangers.

Edited July 7, 2006 by AllenLacy

July 7, 2006

The click has spoken, you took the bait just like I thought you would. If the shoe fits wear it and it looks like it fits very well. I don't have to explain crap to you geeks, you wouldn't understand anyway. If you care to know what really happened just email me, I'll be glad to fill you in. Clicks don't bother, your email will be deleted. And as far it goes for you mtn - man with your strong words you scare me to bad to have you to review any of my caches. Just the thoughts of a mtn -man out of Atlanta scares the h_ _ _ of me. :rolleyes:

I almost forgot, they announced yesterday in my hometown (Rockmart) that they would be building a new Wal - Mart. So now all you clicks can come up here and hide one of your light post cover caches, that's what you so called outdoorsmen are famous for.

7.3k · July 7, 2006

The click has spoken, you took the bait just like I thought you would. If the shoe fits wear it and it looks like it fits very well. I don't have to explain crap to you geeks, you wouldn't understand anyway. If you care to know what really happened just email me, I'll be glad to fill you in. Clicks don't bother, your email will be deleted. And as far it goes for you mtn - man with your strong words you scare me to bad to have you to review any of my caches. Just the thoughts of a mtn -man out of Atlanta scares the h_ _ _ of me.

I almost forgot, they announced yesterday in my hometown (Rockmart) that they would be building a new Wal - Mart. So now all you clicks can come up here and hide one of your light post cover caches, that's what you so called outdoorsmen are famous for.

Soooo...anyone who disagrees with you is part of the "click".

:rolleyes:

July 7, 2006

.....sigh....can't we all just get along??

Just kidding....keep it goin! This is GREAT! :rolleyes:

20.7k · July 7, 2006

The click has spoken, you took the bait just like I thought you would. If the shoe fits wear it and it looks like it fits very well. I don't have to explain crap to you geeks, you wouldn't understand anyway. If you care to know what really happened just email me, I'll be glad to fill you in. Clicks don't bother, your email will be deleted. And as far it goes for you mtn - man with your strong words you scare me to bad to have you to review any of my caches. Just the thoughts of a mtn -man out of Atlanta scares the h_ _ _ of me.
I almost forgot, they announced yesterday in my hometown (Rockmart) that they would be building a new Wal - Mart. So now all you clicks can come up here and hide one of your light post cover caches, that's what you so called outdoorsmen are famous for.

How many times do I have to tell you, the word is spelled 'clique'. :unsure:

July 7, 2006

How many times do I have to tell you, the word is spelled 'clique'.

I still want to know why there isn't an "Ignore Cacher" button to clique on?

Erik and MtnMan were reviewers for Alabama when I got started with caching. Out of 30 hides, I never had a problem getting a cache approved. I followed the guidelines as I understood them and included enough info in the note to reviewer to explain any potential conflicts. I guess I was in a "click" and didn't even know it! :rolleyes:

July 7, 2006

WOW a thread about reviewer bashing, just another day at the beach for us. It comes with the territory, but does it have to ?

If OP’s in threads like this thread had done their homework before placing a cache, well you know the rest of the story

Happy Trails

Max

4.5k · July 7, 2006

The click has spoken, you took the bait just like I thought you would. If the shoe fits wear it and it looks like it fits very well. I don't have to explain crap to you geeks, you wouldn't understand anyway. If you care to know what really happened just email me, I'll be glad to fill you in. Clicks don't bother, your email will be deleted. And as far it goes for you mtn - man with your strong words you scare me to bad to have you to review any of my caches. Just the thoughts of a mtn -man out of Atlanta scares the h_ _ _ of me.

I almost forgot, they announced yesterday in my hometown (Rockmart) that they would be building a new Wal - Mart. So now all you clicks can come up here and hide one of your light post cover caches, that's what you so called outdoorsmen are famous for.

Soooo...anyone who disagrees with you is part of the "click".

I hope ya'll realize that when we reply we are just feeding it. :huh: Well dang, i just did myself! :unsure:

Discussing this would be fine with a non trolling, mature person, but it's easy to see that this isn't gonna happen in this thread. We just need to ignore this guy and let him crawl back under his rock. :unsure:

21.9k · July 7, 2006

The click has spoken, you took the bait just like I thought you would. If the shoe fits wear it and it looks like it fits very well. I don't have to explain crap to you geeks, you wouldn't understand anyway.

I understand crap quite well. I looked at your forum posts and your rejected cache submissions.

If you care to know what really happened just email me, I'll be glad to fill you in. Clicks don't bother, your email will be deleted.

Or I could provide additional detail about your caches. Facts are fun.

And as far it goes for you mtn - man with your strong words you scare me to bad to have you to review any of my caches. Just the thoughts of a mtn -man out of Atlanta scares the h_ _ _ of me.

He's actually kind of cute. Don't be afraid.

I almost forgot, they announced yesterday in my hometown (Rockmart) that they would be building a new Wal - Mart. So now all you clicks can come up here and hide one of your light post cover caches, that's what you so called outdoorsmen are famous for.

How's the job application for "greeter" going?

July 7, 2006

I almost forgot, they announced yesterday in my hometown (Rockmart) that they would be building a new Wal - Mart. So now all you clicks can come up here and hide one of your light post cover caches, that's what you so called outdoorsmen are famous for.

How's the job application for "greeter" going?

<voice=Kelso>Ohhh, BURN!</voice>

Edited July 7, 2006 by VegasCacheHounds

July 7, 2006

If you check the log of a slowmojo cache that he archived you will find his log that follows: (emphasis mine)

Went out today to check on the cache after reading the logs, man I could not believe the terrain where I had the cache hid, it was in pretty bad shape. Looks to me like everyone has not logged there DNF's! Tried to get the terrain back to normal as we possibly could. I have Archived and removed the cache, I will try to do something different with it where the terrain cannot be harmed. Eric had warned me there could be a lot of poking around, should have listen.

Which makes his latest post all the more humorous:

The click[sic] has spoken, you took the bait just like I thought you would. If the shoe fits wear it and it looks like it fits very well. I don't have to explain crap to you geeks, you wouldn't understand anyway.

So what I gather from this, the reviewer Erik told him his cache was a poor idea and he didn't listen, only to find out later that Erik was right. The posters in this thread are telling him he is wrong and he isn't listening either. Am I seeing a pattern here? :rolleyes: It would seem that the one person not understanding what is being explained here is the OP.

As to GA reviewers, gpsfun approves caches for my area in the northeast and everyone here hold him in the highest regards.

July 7, 2006

I wish we could vote people off the island.

2.2k · July 7, 2006

geez! ya mean that being one of "the more inner circles of cachers" isn't good enough anymore? now i gotta be a member of a 'click',(sic)??? :unsure:

whose tuchus do i have to smooch now? :unsure:

*gets out giant economy size chapstick*

:rolleyes:

The Power Abuser Reviewers

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment