Podcast caches not allowed

January 28, 2007

I submitted a cache for approval. It had content promoting Cache-A-Maniacs podcast. It was denied and archived. Reason given by reviewer was that gc.com does not allow pod caches and to go to their site and post the cache there. Why? Is my question.

I have the email to prove it. If you do not believe.

6.4k · January 29, 2007

I submitted a cache for approval. It had content promoting Cache-A-Maniacs podcast. It was denied and archived. Reason given by reviewer was that gc.com does not allow pod caches and to go to their site and post the cache there. Why? Is my question.

I have the email to prove it. If you do not believe.

What exactly did the email say?

January 29, 2007

I submitted a cache for approval. It had content promoting Cache-A-Maniacs podcast. It was denied and archived. Reason given by reviewer was that gc.com does not allow pod caches and to go to their site and post the cache there. Why? Is my question.

I have the email to prove it. If you do not believe.

What exactly did the email say?

In red is the email I received:

I have been informed by GC.com that I can not publish a Pod Cache. They have there own web site.

After the first cache you submitted and I approve it they informed me to send you to Pod Caching Com to publish your cache.

Regards

MC

Edited January 29, 2007 by Team GCHound

January 29, 2007

I submitted a cache for approval. It had content promoting Cache-A-Maniacs podcast. It was denied and archived. Reason given by reviewer was that gc.com does not allow pod caches and to go to their site and post the cache there. Why? Is my question.

I have the email to prove it. If you do not believe.

What exactly did the email say?

In read is the email I received:

I have been informed by GC.com that I can not publish a Pod Cache. They have there own web site.

After the first cache you submitted and I approve it they informed me to send you to Pod Caching Com to publish your cache.

Regards

MC

I have never had a cache approved dealing with a podcast, so I do not know where that information came from.

January 29, 2007

Why?? these were allowed.

This podcache is listed as GCXRH6 on www.geocaching.com. It was created by TeamAstro [profile] and is located in South Australia

This is the first PodCache in Australia AND the first to be placed in a country outside the usa.

This podcache is listed as GCTWC2 on www.geocaching.com. It was created by RxMan387 [profile] and is located in Michigan, USA

Drive to the coordinates and start listening to the mp3. On the mp3 you will receive instructions on where to park. The hike will be about 1/3 of a mile from the specified parking area.

This podcache is listed as GCT1TR on www.geocaching.com. It was created by perseid88 [profile] and is located in Fort Worth, Texas, USA

This adventure will take you on a short journey through town down I35W. One half of the final coordinates are found in Glenwood Park. The other half of the final coordinates are […]

This podcache is listed as GCTAGT on www.geocaching.com. It was created by ssphoto [profile] and is located near Wauconda, Illinois, USA

Horsetrails and Huffing It: listen to the Podcache (mp3 file) and get clues to the cache. The hike will be about 1.3 miles from the posted coordinates and can take up to an hour […]

This podcache is listed as GCREDR on www.geocaching.com. It was created by Samiaminca & myMarie [profile] and is located near Oceanside, California, USA

Go to the cache listing on www.geocaching.com for further instructions.

This podcache is listed as GCQ4E1 on www.geocaching.com. It was created by Will+Bill [profile] and is located in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

This PodCache is located at the beautiful Indianapolis Art Museum gardens (Lilly House and Gardens) and is the first PodCache in Indianapolis.

This was taken from the podcache site.

so why does geocaching.com have a problem now?

January 29, 2007

We just had an event in Indiana that was promoting podcacher.com.

1.6k · January 29, 2007

Yeah , I attended that one and found a podcache that was waiting approval , in which I deposited 3 TB's.

I put them there because I seen no problem with said cache being approved as it is no different then some

mystery caches we had found that required us to listen to a mp3 file . Be a real shame if these caches were not allowed.

Star

2.3k · January 29, 2007

I submitted a cache for approval. It had content promoting Cache-A-Maniacs podcast. It was denied and archived. Reason given by reviewer was that gc.com does not allow pod caches and to go to their site and post the cache there. Why? Is my question.

I have the email to prove it. If you do not believe.

I just looked at the cache and it doesn't say anything about a pod cache. Did you change the description? Like any cache some get listed some do not. A lot depends on the description on the page.

January 29, 2007

I did change it. I was trying to get it published. I have ammo can that is setting in the woods. I really did not want to go and get it. The content was a cut and paste of the about us from cacheamaniacs.com and I had their approval. I still have the it save if you would like to see it.

January 29, 2007

Each episode of the Cache-A-Maniacs features a candid, uncut, and irregular interview a member of the Geocaching community. What do they mean by "candid, uncut, and irregular interviews?"

• Candid: While guests are provided with a list of typical questions, the shows are unscripted, recorded live.

• Uncut: While we might edit the shows to make them easier to listen or watch, the content of the interview will remain untouched.

• Irregular: We'll release at least one show each month, sometimes we might also release one each week. Shows will very in length with many under 20 minutes, and some more than an hour.

When possible they video tape the interviews which will be release as video podcasts. Most will be recorded over the telephone or an IP for an audio only podcast. Stop by this website for show notes, including links the guests' profile, as each show is posted.

The hosts would like to hear from the FTF and other finders at 206-222-2153.

January 29, 2007

There is the body of the cache page.

2.3k · January 29, 2007

That may have been your problem. What you wrote is basically an advertisement for the other website. It is possible that you can work with your reviewer to change the text to make it work. you can also write appeals@geocaching.com and submit all your info.

January 29, 2007

That may have been your problem. What you wrote is basically an advertisement for the other website. It is possible that you can work with your reviewer to change the text to make it work. you can also write appeals@geocaching.com and submit all your info.

I have already submitted a new cache and cache page with two sentences in the body. It is two much trouble. To have a hobby where you have to go through more trouble then your job, no thanks.

3.3k · January 29, 2007

Maybe your cache violates the new guideline regarding a cache being solvable on the cache page? Would cachers need to listen to the podcast, in order to derive the coordinates? If this is the case, my bet is that it is why it isn't approvable.

January 29, 2007

Maybe your cache violates the new guideline regarding a cache being solvable on the cache page? Would cachers need to listen to the podcast, in order to derive the coordinates? If this is the case, my bet is that it is why it isn't approvable.

No audio involved, just a plain traditional ammo can in will find my the coords on the page in the woods.

January 29, 2007

(A repeat from what I posted on Podcacher.com)

I think this seems more about a cache advertising a podcast, than a podcache. For those who might not know the concept of a podcache is simply making a cache that requires the use of an mp3 player in order to find the cache with audio directions.

24.7k · January 29, 2007

That may have been your problem. What you wrote is basically an advertisement for the other website. It is possible that you can work with your reviewer to change the text to make it work. you can also write appeals@geocaching.com and submit all your info.

I agree here. Based on what you said the problems wasn't so much the pod cast as it was you were promoting the website. There is probably a solution to be found. There is nothing wrong with a verbal instead of written description for a cache.

January 29, 2007

(A repeat from what I posted on Podcacher.com)

I think this seems more about a cache advertising a podcast, than a podcache. For those who might not know the concept of a podcache is simply making a cache that requires the use of an mp3 player in order to find the cache with audio directions.

If it is advertising it is for gc.com. These are two geocachers that interview other geocachers about geocaching. Not those other websites. Reviewer called it a pod cache. So the podcacher.com graphics on the podcaches that uses a mp3 player is not advertising. There is no way anyone can compare to gc.com in the area. They are doing podcast's on geocaching and hobby.

21.9k · January 29, 2007

Some of the issues commonly encountered with podcaches include:

1. The cache is referenced by audio description only. GPS use is required to be an integral part of any cache. This can be solved by involving GPS coordinates in the hunt for something more "integral" than the location of the parking lot.

2. Finding the cache requires a file download from the internet. An alternative means of finding the cache needs to be provided for people who do not want to risk downloading a file, or who do not have the hardware or software needed to work with the file.

3. The cache page links to and/or talks about the podcacher.com website. Since that .com site has an online store, prior permission from Groundspeak is required for the cache to be listed. It is a commercial solicitation (whether or not it is intentional, and even if it is indirect). In my review territory, when I have referred caches of this type to Groundspeak, the answer has come back "no."

January 29, 2007

Some of the issues commonly encountered with podcaches include:

1. The cache is referenced by audio description only. GPS use is required to be an integral part of any cache. This can be solved by involving GPS coordinates in the hunt for something more "integral" than the location of the parking lot.

2. Finding the cache requires a file download from the internet. An alternative means of finding the cache needs to be provided for people who do not want to risk downloading a file, or who do not have the hardware or software needed to work with the file.

3. The cache page links to and/or talks about the podcacher.com website. Since that .com site has an online store, prior permission from Groundspeak is required for the cache to be listed. It is a commercial solicitation (whether or not it is intentional, and even if it is indirect). In my review territory, when I have referred caches of this type to Groundspeak, the answer has come back "no."

1. No audio, just a ammo can in the middle of a woods. Coordinates are the ones on the cache page.

2. No file or download just a traditional cache.

3. It is not podcacher.com, the .com does not have a store.

Podcast promoting geocaching.

January 29, 2007

Event that was yesterday. Promoting podcacher.com

Northern Indiana event

24.7k · January 29, 2007

....2. Finding the cache requires a file download from the internet. An alternative means of finding the cache needs to be provided for people who do not want to risk downloading a file, or who do not have the hardware or software needed to work with the file.....

This make is very clear that a cache that I'm working on can not be listed on this site. It will involve the use of files and passwords to make sure the cache is worked in sequence. I knew I'd be pushing this sites limites a year ago due to the concept but the ongoing rules creep makes it harder and harder to stuff variouse creative ideas inside the box.

7.2k · January 29, 2007

...ongoing rules creep makes it harder and harder to stuff variouse creative ideas inside the box.

Kind of like the box shrinking leaving many valid ideas outside the box. Like the newly discovered rules change on letterboxes leaving one wondering, "what's the point?"

2.3k · January 29, 2007

...ongoing rules creep makes it harder and harder to stuff variouse creative ideas inside the box.

Kind of like the box shrinking leaving many valid ideas outside the box. Like the newly discovered rules change on letterboxes leaving one wondering, "what's the point?"

Cr as you stated in the letterbox thread:

So, unless the guidelines have changed, and Keystone says they haven't, then your reviewer has it wrong.

It also sounds like more than a few in this very thread have got it wrong.

There have been no changes to the Letterbox hybrid cache guidelines. What is going on over in that thread is as you said more of a misunderstanding (my word not yours) There are no newly discovered rules changes on letterbox hybrid caches.

7.2k · January 29, 2007

There have been no changes to the Letterbox hybrid cache guidelines. What is going on over in that thread is as you said more of a misunderstanding (my word not yours) There are no newly discovered rules changes on letterbox hybrid caches.

One reviewer says there has. What is Max Cacher trying to say, then?

January 29, 2007

Some of the issues commonly encountered with podcaches include:

2. Finding the cache requires a file download from the internet. An alternative means of finding the cache needs to be provided for people who do not want to risk downloading a file, or who do not have the hardware or software needed to work with the file.

Well I dissagree, I thought that's what the star system was for, there are plenty of 5 star caches (or even more extremes, Psyco Caches) out there that I will never do because I don't want to RISK MY LIFE, but that's okay compared to risking a download? Another example of service to the "lowest common denominator", next stop... all caches will be required to be wheelchair accessible.

38.2k · January 29, 2007

I have already submitted a new cache and cache page with two sentences in the body. It is two much trouble. To have a hobby where you have to go through more trouble then your job, no thanks.

If you had read the guidelines before hand you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble. I get a kick out of all the people who submit caches that don't compy with the guidelines, then come here and cry about how hard it is to get a cache published.

It's actually a very simple process.

1-Read the guidelines.

2-Make sure your cache complies

3-Submit your cache

4-Watch it get published.

If something in the guidelines isn't clear to you, a quick e-mail to the local reviewer should clear things up.

38.2k · January 29, 2007

There have been no changes to the Letterbox hybrid cache guidelines. What is going on over in that thread is as you said more of a misunderstanding (my word not yours) There are no newly discovered rules changes on letterbox hybrid caches.

One reviewer says there has. What is Max Cacher trying to say, then?

There was no change to the text of the LB guidelines. There was a clarification added to the guidelines for all caches stating that GPS use must be an integral part of the hunt for a geocache. You would have thought that would have been a no brainer, but obviously it was needed.

Edited January 29, 2007 by briansnat

January 29, 2007

Some of the issues commonly encountered with podcaches include:

1. The cache is referenced by audio description only. GPS use is required to be an integral part of any cache. This can be solved by involving GPS coordinates in the hunt for something more "integral" than the location of the parking lot.

2. Finding the cache requires a file download from the internet. An alternative means of finding the cache needs to be provided for people who do not want to risk downloading a file, or who do not have the hardware or software needed to work with the file.

3. The cache page links to and/or talks about the podcacher.com website. Since that .com site has an online store, prior permission from Groundspeak is required for the cache to be listed. It is a commercial solicitation (whether or not it is intentional, and even if it is indirect). In my review territory, when I have referred caches of this type to Groundspeak, the answer has come back "no."

1. Then what about a podcache that will take around, say a mall, leading you to coordinates to piece together a set of coordinates? Then you will have to plug those coordinates into a GPSr to find the cache. Would this idea meet this new guideline?

2. What about hydro caches? Those require scuba gear. What about island caches? Those require a boat. What about caving and cliff caches? Those require climbing gear. Caches requiring extra gear has been a part of Geocaching since it was born. This requirement is no different. And if it's because of the price of an mp3 player, then convert the file to a .wav and burn it to a CD. File converter programs are free all over the internet and you can't tell me that Geocachers do not own or do not have access to a CD burner to put the sound file on a CD. Then they can listen to it on a Discman. Those are old and cheap.

As for the downloading part, there are LOTS of caches our there that require you to download some type of file from the internet to find them. I know of two right off the top of my head that are NOT podcaches but have sound files involved. There has been no problems with either of these, except that one is REALLY difficult!

Another thing to do is to listen to the file at home and take notes (Windows Media Player will play .mp3 files). Then take the notes along with you to the area. Sure it's more work, but isn't that they way things usually work. If you don't do it the intended way, then it usually involves more work, but it can still be done.

3. A Podcache and Podcacher.com are two different things. So let's not confuse them. If we simply make sure that the cache page says that it's a Podcache with no reference to Podcacher.com, will this meet this new guideline?

Edited January 29, 2007 by Lord Elwood

2.2k · January 29, 2007

There have been no changes to the Letterbox hybrid cache guidelines. What is going on over in that thread is as you said more of a misunderstanding (my word not yours) There are no newly discovered rules changes on letterbox hybrid caches.

One reviewer says there has. What is Max Cacher trying to say, then?

Let's leave the letterbox discussion in the letterbox thread. Thanks.

6.7k · January 29, 2007

... 1. Then what about a podcache that will take around, say a mall, leading you to coordinates to piece together a set of coordinates? Then you will have to plug those coordinates into a GPSr to find the cache...

I think I saw a thread the other day where a 'new game' is being developed that sounds just like this. It'd be funny if these are verboten but Groundspeak makes a new game that does essentially the same thing!

The reference to this new thing was vague, so maybe it's not like this at all.

7.2k · January 29, 2007

... 1. Then what about a podcache that will take around, say a mall, leading you to coordinates to piece together a set of coordinates? Then you will have to plug those coordinates into a GPSr to find the cache...

I think I saw a thread the other day where a 'new game' is being developed that sounds just like this. It'd be funny if these are verboten but Groundspeak makes a new game that does essentially the same thing!

The reference to this new thing was vague, so maybe it's not like this at all.

Was it this?

January 29, 2007

I have already submitted a new cache and cache page with two sentences in the body. It is two much trouble. To have a hobby where you have to go through more trouble then your job, no thanks.

If you had read the guidelines before hand you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble. I get a kick out of all the people who submit caches that don't compy with the guidelines, then come here and cry about how hard it is to get a cache published.

It's actually a very simple process.

1-Read the guidelines.

2-Make sure your cache complies

3-Submit your cache

4-Watch it get published.

If something in the guidelines isn't clear to you, a quick e-mail to the local reviewer should clear things up.

Just for your information the same cache that I submitted that got denied yesterday, now has been approved. I have had all of my questions answered and I am out of here.

January 29, 2007

I submitted a cache for approval. It had content promoting Cache-A-Maniacs podcast. It was denied and archived. Reason given by reviewer was that gc.com does not allow pod caches and to go to their site and post the cache there. Why? Is my question.

I have the email to prove it. If you do not believe.

It is approved now. You can close this topic. Thanks

January 29, 2007

Please don't close the topic because my questions have not been answered. I would like to make a Podcache, but I'm not going to devote the time to it if I know its not going to be approved.

January 29, 2007

Please don't close the topic because my questions have not been answered. I would like to make a Podcache, but I'm not going to devote the time to it if I know its not going to be approved.

For the others that need this question answer you can leave it open. Good luck Lord Elwood

7.2k · January 29, 2007

I submitted a cache for approval. It had content promoting Cache-A-Maniacs podcast. It was denied and archived. Reason given by reviewer was that gc.com does not allow pod caches and to go to their site and post the cache there. Why? Is my question.

I have the email to prove it. If you do not believe.

It is approved now. You can close this topic. Thanks

Please share how it was "fixed" in order to get it approved so the rest of us will know.

Thanks.

3.9k · January 29, 2007

Some of the issues commonly encountered with podcaches include:

1. The cache is referenced by audio description only. GPS use is required to be an integral part of any cache. This can be solved by involving GPS coordinates in the hunt for something more "integral" than the location of the parking lot.

2. Finding the cache requires a file download from the internet. An alternative means of finding the cache needs to be provided for people who do not want to risk downloading a file, or who do not have the hardware or software needed to work with the file.

3. The cache page links to and/or talks about the podcacher.com website. Since that .com site has an online store, prior permission from Groundspeak is required for the cache to be listed. It is a commercial solicitation (whether or not it is intentional, and even if it is indirect). In my review territory, when I have referred caches of this type to Groundspeak, the answer has come back "no."

1. Then what about a podcache that will take around, say a mall, leading you to coordinates to piece together a set of coordinates? Then you will have to plug those coordinates into a GPSr to find the cache. Would this idea meet this new guideline?

2. What about hydro caches? Those require scuba gear. What about island caches? Those require a boat. What about caving and cliff caches? Those require climbing gear. Caches requiring extra gear has been a part of Geocaching since it was born. This requirement is no different. And if it's because of the price of an mp3 player, then convert the file to a .wav and burn it to a CD. File converter programs are free all over the internet and you can't tell me that Geocachers do not own or do not have access to a CD burner to put the sound file on a CD. Then they can listen to it on a Discman. Those are old and cheap.

As for the downloading part, there are LOTS of caches our there that require you to download some type of file from the internet to find them. I know of two right off the top of my head that are NOT podcaches but have sound files involved. There has been no problems with either of these, except that one is REALLY difficult!

Another thing to do is to listen to the file at home and take notes (Windows Media Player will play .mp3 files). Then take the notes along with you to the area. Sure it's more work, but isn't that they way things usually work. If you don't do it the intended way, then it usually involves more work, but it can still be done.

3. A Podcache and Podcacher.com are two different things. So let's not confuse them. If we simply make sure that the cache page says that it's a Podcache with no reference to Podcacher.com, will this meet this new guideline?

If you really are wondering why so many people, including the site admins, do not want podcaches on geocaching.com, simply look at the dismal and horrid facts, as follows:

Anyone who has ever watched either the original 1956 documentary film Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the later 1978 version is well aware that the invading aliens hatched out their new "baby" alien clones in large pods, which digested the hapless human victim while the fetal alien was being grown to imitate the victim. So, pods are bad things because they allow the space alien "child" to suck the life blood out of human victims and, worse, the pods also nurture the little fetal aliens as they grow into human-appearing "clones". Sooo, I ask you: What is so hard to understand about the dangers of allowing such pods and their podcasts (a devious advertising ploy) to be listed on a site such as geocaching.com? If you have half a brain you understand the reason for the ban. In my book -- and I hope that this does not sound too simplistic -- anyone who is for pods or podcasts is an enemy of the human race, and is aiding the aliens in killing us off, and such a person is therefore really a no-good traitorous ally of the aliens.

38.2k · January 29, 2007

If you really are wondering why so many people, including the site admins, do not want podcaches on geocaching.com, simply look at the dismal and horrid facts, as follows:
Anyone who has ever watched either the original 1956 documentary film Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the later 1978 version is well aware that the invading aliens hatched out their new "baby" alien clones in large pods, which digested the hapless human victim while the fetal alien was being grown to imitate the victim. So, pods are bad things because they allow the space alien "child" to suck the life blood out of human victims and, worse, the pods also nurture the little fetal aliens as they grow into human-appearing "clones". Sooo, I ask you: What is so hard to understand about the dangers of allowing such pods and their podcasts (a devious advertising ploy) to be listed on a site such as geocaching.com? If you have half a brain you understand the reason for the ban. In my book -- and I hope that this does not sound too simplistic -- anyone who is for pods or podcasts is an enemy of the human race, and is aiding the aliens in killing us off, and such a person is therefore really a no-good traitorous ally of the aliens.

You have a big mouth Vinny. This information was not meant to be leaked to the general public.

9.2k · January 29, 2007

Please don't close the topic because my questions have not been answered. I would like to make a Podcache, but I'm not going to devote the time to it if I know its not going to be approved.

This thread is NOT about podcaching. The OP completely mis-used the term, calling a podcast about geocaching a "podcache", and referred to their own cache as a podcache (see this thread title).

The OP's cache issue was on of putting advertising for another website on their page. That's it.

Podcaches are still allowed, provided they follow the rules that other multi-caches and trads have had to follow.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Prime Suspect

3k · January 29, 2007

In my book -- and I hope that this does not sound too simplistic -- anyone who is for pods or podcasts is an enemy of the human race, and is aiding the aliens in killing us off, and such a person is therefore really a no-good traitorous ally of the aliens.

WHHAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!

3.9k · January 29, 2007

If you really are wondering why so many people, including the site admins, do not want podcaches on geocaching.com, simply look at the dismal and horrid facts, as follows:
Anyone who has ever watched either the original 1956 documentary film Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the later 1978 version is well aware that the invading aliens hatched out their new "baby" alien clones in large pods, which digested the hapless human victim while the fetal alien was being grown to imitate the victim. So, pods are bad things because they allow the space alien "child" to suck the life blood out of human victims and, worse, the pods also nurture the little fetal aliens as they grow into human-appearing "clones". Sooo, I ask you: What is so hard to understand about the dangers of allowing such pods and their podcasts (a devious advertising ploy) to be listed on a site such as geocaching.com? If you have half a brain you understand the reason for the ban. In my book -- and I hope that this does not sound too simplistic -- anyone who is for pods or podcasts is an enemy of the human race, and is aiding the aliens in killing us off, and such a person is therefore really a no-good traitorous ally of the aliens.

You have a big mouth Vinny. This information was not meant to be leaked to the general public.

Brian, I am good and mad right now! Why? Because I am sick and tired of this kind of harrassment from you gol-darned shapeshifter aliens in New Jersey, and I am not gonna take it anymore! Rather, I am gonna stand up for the human race, and stand up to you darn aliens and face you down! Anyone worth their salt knows that the vast majority of "people" in New Jersey have been killed off and replaced by aliens shapeshifters born from the pods, and I am publicly exposing you as a pod loving alien shapeshifter here and now! So, in the name of God and all that is good about the human race, I order you to hie thee away back to your sordid little home planet!

January 29, 2007

Please don't close the topic because my questions have not been answered. I would like to make a Podcache, but I'm not going to devote the time to it if I know its not going to be approved.

This thread is NOT about podcaching. The OP completely mis-used the term, calling a podcast about geocaching a "podcache", and referred to their own cache as a podcache (see this thread title).

The OP's cache issue was on of putting advertising for another website on their page. That's it.

Podcaches are still allowed, provided they follow the rules that other multi-caches and trads have had to follow.

It is both. My cache has been approved with the originally text. During that process I received an email from the reviewer posted above. Statedthat podcaches are not allowed and gc.com told reviewers to not to approve them. I did not clam mine was a podcache, that is why mine is approved now, it is not a podcache. Podcaches are still allowed, you better check. IT IS APPROVED WITH THE TEXT YOU CALL ADVERTISING.

January 29, 2007

I submitted a cache for approval. It had content promoting Cache-A-Maniacs podcast. It was denied and archived. Reason given by reviewer was that gc.com does not allow pod caches and to go to their site and post the cache there. Why? Is my question.

I have the email to prove it. If you do not believe.

It is approved now. You can close this topic. Thanks

Please share how it was "fixed" in order to get it approved so the rest of us will know.

Thanks.

The issue is that my reviewer mistaked my cache as a podcache and it is not. So it is approved now.

January 29, 2007

If you really are wondering why so many people, including the site admins, do not want podcaches on geocaching.com, simply look at the dismal and horrid facts, as follows:
Anyone who has ever watched either the original 1956 documentary film Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the later 1978 version is well aware that the invading aliens hatched out their new "baby" alien clones in large pods, which digested the hapless human victim while the fetal alien was being grown to imitate the victim. So, pods are bad things because they allow the space alien "child" to suck the life blood out of human victims and, worse, the pods also nurture the little fetal aliens as they grow into human-appearing "clones". Sooo, I ask you: What is so hard to understand about the dangers of allowing such pods and their podcasts (a devious advertising ploy) to be listed on a site such as geocaching.com? If you have half a brain you understand the reason for the ban. In my book -- and I hope that this does not sound too simplistic -- anyone who is for pods or podcasts is an enemy of the human race, and is aiding the aliens in killing us off, and such a person is therefore really a no-good traitorous ally of the aliens.

You have a big mouth Vinny. This information was not meant to be leaked to the general public.

You'd be surprised at what Vinny has squirreled away in the watershed northwest of Frederick! I think I did see a few extra large pods in his backyard though!

3.9k · January 30, 2007

If you really are wondering why so many people, including the site admins, do not want podcaches on geocaching.com, simply look at the dismal and horrid facts, as follows:
Anyone who has ever watched either the original 1956 documentary film Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the later 1978 version is well aware that the invading aliens hatched out their new "baby" alien clones in large pods, which digested the hapless human victim while the fetal alien was being grown to imitate the victim. So, pods are bad things because they allow the space alien "child" to suck the life blood out of human victims and, worse, the pods also nurture the little fetal aliens as they grow into human-appearing "clones". Sooo, I ask you: What is so hard to understand about the dangers of allowing such pods and their podcasts (a devious advertising ploy) to be listed on a site such as geocaching.com? If you have half a brain you understand the reason for the ban. In my book -- and I hope that this does not sound too simplistic -- anyone who is for pods or podcasts is an enemy of the human race, and is aiding the aliens in killing us off, and such a person is therefore really a no-good traitorous ally of the aliens.

You have a big mouth Vinny. This information was not meant to be leaked to the general public.

You'd be surprised at what Vinny has squirreled away in the watershed northwest of Frederick! I think I did see a few extra large pods in his backyard though!

Larry, I am very disappointed in you. I pay you twenty bucks per week to keep your mouth shut about my clandestine deal with the space aliens and the storage area in my backyard forest.

:laughing:

3.9k · January 30, 2007

Closed per OP's request.

Podcast caches not allowed

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