Again a "may not" interpretation question

[cezanne]

I am aware of the fact that the question regarding the interpretation of the formulation "may not be published" which occurs several times in the guidelines already came up in several threads in this forum (among others in a thread dealing with the download of executables and data).

 

I noticed that the same formulation also arises in the part of the guidelines where the cache saturation issue is discussed. Now I am wondering whether

the sentence

 

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site.

 

is meant to say that the reviewers are free to publish even caches for which the distance to the closest waypoint of another cache which is eligible for the distance check is at a distance of say 80 metres (i.e. much less than 161 metres) without the presence of very special circumstances (for example a river separating the two locations)? I used to read the .1 mile requirement in terms of "will not be published" and not as "might not be published", but other parts of the guidelines where the same "may not ..." made me start to wonder which interpretation is the correct one.

 

It is not the cache saturation guideline that is within the centre of my interest. I simply would like to know in which parts of the guideline strict rules are described and in which parts it is up to each reviewer to decide according to his own preferences.

 

I do understand that it is not possible to provide guidelines that cover all possible cases and I agree that it makes sense to provide the reviewers with a certain degree of freedom to decide each case based upon the individual circumstances.

 

Nevertheless, it would be helpful for me and probably for many other cachers to know in advance which parts of the guidelines are to be understood in a soft way. I guess that this would eliminate also the need for many discussions in these boards and also between cachers and reviewers.

 

Another section of the guidelines which causes me trouble is the section on commercial caches.

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

 

Some exceptions can be made. In these situations, permission can be given by Groundspeak.

 

At first it is said that commercial caches are not permitted and afterwards it is said that exceptions can be made. That appears to be a contradiction to me. Shouldn't it read like "Commercial caches ..... without the permission of Groundspeak which can be granted in exceptional cases are not permitted"?

 

Moreover, I would like to know whether it is true that reviewers are free to decide on their own whether they wish to publish caches for which some of the above properties are fulfilled (for example, one has to go inside a business).

 

I very much would like to see answers to the questions raised above by people from Groundspeak (staff or volunteers). I am aware of the fact that many possible interpretations of the guidelines exist (some of them have intensively discussed on these boards as well). What I would like to get to know is Groundspeak's intent.

 

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

This is interesting. In the thread on buried caches, Keystone indicated that exceptions are only granted if Groundspeak can contact the landowner to verify permission. I wonder if there is some special code in the guidelines. Does "May Not" mean that the reviewers have latitude in granting exceptions while "Not permitted" means that only Groundspeak can make exceptions.\?

Edited July 12, 2007 by tozainamboku

[cezanne]

I forgot to mention before a further reason why it would be helpful to know the intent of Groundspeak. The "may not ..." ambiguity makes it very hard to provide translations of the guidelines to other languages even if the translator has a perfect command of English and the other involved language since typically no direct equivalent of the "may not ..." formulation exists. One has to decide for either "will not" or "might not" in some way. As the number of geocachers using gc.com who do not have a reasonably good command of English is growing, the current situation is rather unfortunate.

 

Cezanne

[+PlantAKiss]

At the risk of having old shoes thrown at me...I believe the word "may" isn't correct to begin with. The word "may" means asking permission, such as "Mother, may I go to the movies?". The word "might" means "possibly"..."He might approve the cache or he might not."

 

Well, that's what I was taught in school any way...

[cezanne]

At the risk of having old shoes thrown at me...I believe the word "may" isn't correct to begin with. The word "may" means asking permission, such as "Mother, may I go to the movies?". The word "might" means "possibly"..."He might approve the cache or he might not."

 

Well, that's what I was taught in school any way...

 

The trouble starts with the negated version while you referred to the non-negated version. As can be seen from many discussions on these boards and elsewhere, the sentence "A cache .........[insert some condition to be fulfilled] may not be published" can have two different meanings. In one case it is a like a prohibition and in the other case like something which might possibly occur.

 

From the linguistic point of view, both interpretations are possible. In a legal context, often the prohibition interpretation is meant, but guidelines are more informal than laws and it is simply unclear which interpretation is intended by Groundspeak. I hope that the point I tried to make became clearer to you now.

 

Cezanne

[+TrailGators]

At the risk of having old shoes thrown at me...I believe the word "may" isn't correct to begin with. The word "may" means asking permission, such as "Mother, may I go to the movies?". The word "might" means "possibly"..."He might approve the cache or he might not."

 

Well, that's what I was taught in school any way...

 

The trouble starts with the negated version while you referred to the non-negated version. As can be seen from many discussions on these boards and elsewhere, the sentence "A cache .........[insert some condition to be fulfilled] may not be published" can have two different meanings. In one case it is a like a prohibition and in the other case like something which might possibly occur.

 

From the linguistic point of view, both interpretations are possible. In a legal context, often the prohibition interpretation is meant, but guidelines are more informal than laws and it is simply unclear which interpretation is intended by Groundspeak. I hope that the point I tried to make became clearer to you now.

 

Cezanne

It may be clearer to some and it may not be clearer to others....

[+KoosKoos]

I think they're dancing around the fact (and staying positive) that the wording would make the most sense as:

 

probably will not be

 

Yes, the reviewers can make exceptions, but it's pretty rare. To me, "may not" sounds overly optimistic that you have a shot at getting something published that's outside the main guidelines.

[+TrailGators]

I think they're dancing around the fact (and staying positive) that the wording would make the most sense as:

 

probably will not be

 

Yes, the reviewers can make exceptions, but it's pretty rare. To me, "may not" sounds overly optimistic that you have a shot at getting something published that's outside the main guidelines.

That's how I have always interpreted it too. I think they really want people to stay away from the fence.

[+mtn-man]

They are guidelines and not rules. We are allowed to use our judgment as reviewers in many cases.

 

I can answer the proximity issue I think. I just listed a traditional cache that was right at 155 meters from the start of a multicache. It was in an area that isn't that cache dense. With the cache being very close, I listed it. If it was a very cache dense area, I might not have. If it was that close to another of the same cache owner's caches, I probably would not have at all.

 

There are a ton of things to evaluate when looking at proximity. I listed a cache yesterday that was 80 meters from another cache. The one cache is at the top of a cliff well above a waterfall. The second one is down below under the waterfall. It takes a long walk to get there, so I listed it. In urban areas, the cache might be 140 meters away, but there could be a large, solid building that you have to go around (as apposed to walkways between buildings, etc.). We might list that. The "what if" list can go on and on. We look at these "what if" situations and evaluate them on a cache by cache basis. If your cache wasn't listed and you feel you have a good argument, then write the reviewer. I am often swayed by a good argument for your cache. Our goal is to get your cache listed, not to get it archived. We will work with you.

 

Regarding the commercial issue, again, the guidelines try to remain flexible. You have a very low chance of getting a commercial cache listed. The reviewers cannot make that decision under any circumstance that I am aware of without guidance from Groundspeak. Yet, the Planet Of The Apes "Project Ape" series was indeed published and was wildly successful. They worked out a deal directly with Groundspeak though. The reviewer would have to turn that down. Who knows. If a commercial cache deal sounded good to Groundspeak and makes sense to/for geocachers, you might see another series of commercial caches. I mean, a Volvo cache series with keys for the FTF folks might be really cool.

[+flask]

I think they're dancing around the fact (and staying positive) that the wording would make the most sense as:

tore

probably will not be

 

 

yep.

 

it is nice, however, to know that the reviewers may use their discretion. there are plenty of caches that violate the letter of the guidelines, but are still acceptable. doing your homework and getting permissions helps a lot.

 

cache too close to railroad track? possible to approve under right circumstances.

to close to a school? possible with very explicit permission from appropriate authority.

at a commercial site? once again, possible with proper permission and non-commercial tone.

 

you get the idea.

 

anecdotally, one of the best caches i ever went to was at a bird feeder store. you had to go inside and ask the proprietor for the coordinates, which were somewhere behind the store. the guy had a little walking path back there with a whole bunch of large models of african animals. and by going into the store, the proprietor was alerted to turn on the african safari soundtrack. great fun.

[cezanne]

They are guidelines and not rules. We are allowed to use our judgment as reviewers in many cases.

 

First of all, many thanks for your helpful reply. I appreciate your effort.

Let me just add that I did not raise these questions due to some problems with getting published a cache. My intent was to understand what is behind the guidelines in a better way. As I mentioned this also helps in translating and/or explaining the guidelines to people who do not understand the original version.

 

You have a very low chance of getting a commercial cache listed. The reviewers cannot make that decision under any circumstance that I am aware of without guidance from Groundspeak.

 

I am somehow surprised by your first sentence. In my experience, the chances very much depends on the involved reviewer. There are reviewers who even decline a series of caches hidden outside of restaurants and there are reviewers who publish a lot of caches (not to say essentially all of this type which are submitted) where one either has to enter a business (but not buy something there!) or where one has to pay an entrance fee to a for-profit organization. [Again: I do not have in mind to hide a commercial cache - my caches are hidden in forest areas. My goal is to only to obtain a clearer understanding.]

 

To clarify my question regarding commercial caches, let me make my question a bit more precise. Maybe there is someone around in this forum who knows how exactly the process works and what a reviewer can decide on his own. My question concentrates on caches which are commercial in the sense of the guidelines of Groundspeak, but not in the very strict sense of the term (for example, I am not referring to caches sponsored/hidden by a company). A typical example would be a cache hidden in a restaurant/cafeteria where one has to enter and ask for the box in order to log, but where there is no need to order something (except for the fact that some people feel a personal obligation for not leaving the restaurant without any consumption).

 

Cezanne

[+Miragee]

There was a series of many caches here placed in the parking lots of a national store chain. The caches ranged far and wide across this large county and beyond. After more than a year in place, during which these caches were found by many hundreds of cachers. the cache owner was told

. . . my XXXXXX caches are commercial solicitation.

Those caches were no more a commercial solicitation than any of the LPCs in any other parking lot and they did not have the actual name of the store in the cache name.

 

Nevertheless, the caches were Archived.

 

So . . . sometimes "timing" might be involved, as well as who just happens to be glancing through cache listings for an area . . .

[+tozainamboku]

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced there is a hidden code in the way the guidelines are written.

 

For some of the guidelines, the reviewers are allowed to grant exceptions based on their own judgement and knowledge of an area. For example they can allow a cache that is closer than .1 mile to another cache if they feel the area is not over saturated and the caches won't be confused with each other. For other guidelines, the reviewers cannot grant an exception on their own. Only Groundspeak can grant an exception on a buried cache or a commercial cache. That doesn't mean that a reviewers judgement is still not involved. There are issues in determining whether the cache is buried or commercial.

 

For example, one type of commercial cache would be one that requires an entry fee to find the cache. However, if the fee is paid to a governmental or quasi-governmental agency as a use fee, the cache might not be commercial. The reviewers seem to have the responsibility in determining if a fee is going to pay for the use of the park or if it is an entrance fee that is profiting a land owner.

 

The more common type of commercial cache is one that uses the cache page to advertise a business. Cleary caches can be placed at or near a business. What can't be done is to use the cache to promote a business. The reviewers look for certain words on the cache page that promote a business. Most reviewers are willing to work with the cacher to find wording that is acceptable. I suspect the reviewers don't have as much flexiblity as it seems. They probably have their own set of guidelines to use in determining whether a cache page is promoting a business. The reason these are not published is that if they were geocachers would work the guidelines to place caches that meet the letter of the guidelines yet still promote the business. By keeping the details of how reviewers decide a cache is commercial secret, Groundspeak and the reviewers can make adjustments as needed to enforce the no commercial cache guideline. It could be somewhat frustrating for a cache hider, but so long as the reviewers are willing to help with suggestions on how to make the cache write-up non-commercial I don't have a problem with it.

[+mtn-man]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you might be talking purely commercial, like the Ape caches.

 

A typical example would be a cache hidden in a restaurant/cafeteria where one has to enter and ask for the box in order to log, but where there is no need to order something (except for the fact that some people feel a personal obligation for not leaving the restaurant without any consumption).

The guideline clarification on the recent update addressed this...

If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

Does that help some? Feel free to ask your clarification questions.

[+briansnat]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you might be talking purely commercial, like the Ape caches.

 

A typical example would be a cache hidden in a restaurant/cafeteria where one has to enter and ask for the box in order to log, but where there is no need to order something (except for the fact that some people feel a personal obligation for not leaving the restaurant without any consumption).

The guideline clarification on the recent update addressed this...

If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

Does that help some? Feel free to ask your clarification questions.

 

Also, hiding a cache next to a business, even with that businesses permission is not necessarily commercial.

 

Example of what would be commercial and probably rejected:

 

Cache Description - Cache is next to Joe's Pizza. We think it's the best pizza in town. Stop in and say hello to Joe and the gang for me.

 

Same cache hidden in the exact same spot, but this one is probably OK:

 

Cache Description - Cache is hidden downtown in a parking lot with the permission of the businesses owner.

[cezanne]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you might be talking purely commercial, like the Ape caches.

 

A typical example would be a cache hidden in a restaurant/cafeteria where one has to enter and ask for the box in order to log, but where there is no need to order something (except for the fact that some people feel a personal obligation for not leaving the restaurant without any consumption).

The guideline clarification on the recent update addressed this...

If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

Does that help some? Feel free to ask your clarification questions.

 

Thanks for your answer, but unfortunately it does not answer what I wanted to know as the sentence you cite above was exactly the starting point for my question, implying that I am well aware of its existence. I am interpreting the and/or in such a way that the guidelines are saying that a cache that fulfills just one of the conditions listed in the and/or/comma statement, is viewed as a commercial one.

 

I got the impression that it heavily depends on the personal preference (not the personal judgement of the situation which will always be the case) of a reviewer whether he/she publishes caches of the type I mentioned in my posting above (you have to go inside a business, but do not buy something there).

 

Basically I would like to know whether there are some "hidden guidelines" on this issue that the reviewers are intended to follow, but which are unknown to the public, or whether it is really up to the individual reviewer to make his/her independent decision. I do understand that there will always exist borderline cases and that in some cases the circumstances are very special. Nevertheless it appears to me that some reviewers are very strict as the commercial issue is concerned (i.e. reject them all) while others do publish almost every cache of the type I described.

 

Cezanne

[+StarBrand]

I think that sentence is intended to be a list of individual things - any one of which make a cache commercial. You are trying to read it as a building list of criteria - all of which must be met in order to be commercial.

[+flask]

start by assuming that caches that MAY be rejected WILL be rejected. then, if you still think it's important, build a good case as to why the cache ought to be approved anyway.

 

e.g., the railroad tracks pass through a city park, the building administration has granted permission and the grounds crew have been notified, the business owner has created a public space on his commercial property that is non-commercial.

 

all of these examples have worked to exceptions, but they ARE exceptions, which reviewers MAY grant if they feel it's warranted. do not assume privilege, and do not be testy if your submission along these lines comes under additional scrutiny.

[+mtn-man]

What Starbrand said is right. "I think that sentence is intended to be a list of individual things - any one of which make a cache commercial."

 

Basically I would like to know whether there are some "hidden guidelines" on this issue that the reviewers are intended to follow, but which are unknown to the public, or whether it is really up to the individual reviewer to make his/her independent decision.

No. "Hidden" guidelines would be pointless, now wouldn't they. There is no "hidden code". It isn't conspiratorial. We have to make judgment calls. We are human. We will make mistakes. To that end...

 

I do understand that there will always exist borderline cases and that in some cases the circumstances are very special. Nevertheless it appears to me that some reviewers are very strict as the commercial issue is concerned (i.e. reject them all) while others do publish almost every cache of the type I described.

You are partially right (I don't agree with the "almost every", and if you see that please report it to the contact address).

 

Unfortunately, it is a part of us being human and a part of human nature. It isn't conspiratorial. The key for us as reviewers is to try to stay on the same page. With so many being brought on, it is obviously tough to keep everyone on the same page. We always work on that but there is no way we can completely succeed and still have "guidelines" instead of "rules". By definition, we are allowed flexibility. There are so many cases where you need to be flexible and there are some where you have to be rigid. It is a tough dance, and if we have a mis-step, lots of times we get called out in the forums it seems. We cringe when we see some topics. It is what it is and it will never be perfect. We just strive for balance.

 

Good questions. Good topic.

[cezanne]

I think that sentence is intended to be a list of individual things - any one of which make a cache commercial. You are trying to read it as a building list of criteria - all of which must be met in order to be commercial.

 

No, I do not (I would be quite untypical for a mathematician to understand or in the way you mentioned), but in discussions I had with other cachers, I realized that some among them indeed use the interpretation that all listed

criteria have to be fulfilled.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

start by assuming that caches that MAY be rejected WILL be rejected. then, if you still think it's important, build a good case as to why the cache ought to be approved anyway.

 

What you write will most probably be helpful for people who are planning to hide a cache which might fall under some "may not" condition (this is, however, not what I have in mind). My goal was just to understand more deeply what can be decided by the reviewers based on their personal preferences and what is subject to criteria all reviewers have to take into account.

 

If the guidelines would contain a sentence of the way you mentioned above, one at least could translate this sentence easily to other languages without having to decide for a certain interpretation. With the current guidelines this is not the case. So the trouble already starts when wishes to discussion about the guidelines in other languages.

 

Cezanne

[+Cascade Reviewer]

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced there is a hidden code in the way the guidelines are written.

Really? There's a hidden code? Hey.......... Can you let me in on it, because no one's told me about it!

 

Unfortunately, it is a part of us being human and a part of human nature. It isn't conspiratorial. The key for us as reviewers is to try to stay on the same page. With so many being brought on, it is obviously tough to keep everyone on the same page. We always work on that but there is no way we can completely succeed and still have "guidelines" instead of "rules". By definition, we are allowed flexibility. There are so many cases where you need to be flexible and there are some where you have to be rigid. It is a tough dance, and if we have a mis-step, lots of times we get called out in the forums it seems. We cringe when we see some topics. It is what it is and it will never be perfect. We just strive for balance.

 

Good questions. Good topic.

I used to (before I became a Reviewer) take part in forum discussions about why couldn't we add lots and lots of Reviewers to lighten the load. Finally it was explained to me clearly enough that the more Reviewers there are, the harder it is to keep everyone on the same page. Groundspeak strives to keep the Guidelines consistent, and that's harder the more Reviewers there are (as well as how many are brought on at a time). After that was explained to me, I stopped arguing. Hmmm.....that's around the time that I was asked to become a Reviewer.......

[+erik88l-r]

As mtn-man said, we cache reviewers are human, and will make mistakes. We also are granted some leeway into how we apply the guidelines based on the individual cache we're reviewing and the area we review it in.

 

I cover a diverse area in my cache reviews, and bend the guidelines differently depending on the area.

In north Georgia the USFS has asked that caches not be closer than .5 miles in the Chattahoochee National Forest, so that's the proximity guideline there, even if the GC guidelines say .1 mile.

 

In Ireland I have to ask people to pledge that their cache also meets the additional Irish geocaching guidelines.

 

In South Africa you won't find many places to hide a cache that doesn't charge a nominal entry fee, as many preserves are privately owned. So I have to bend the commercial guidelines.

 

In Iraq many of the cache hiders are soldiers from the US and Europe, so I have to bend the "cache maintenance" guidelines in consideration of the fact that they have limited control over where they'll be in a few months.

 

I'm sure there are other cases where the same reviewer applies the guidelines differently based on the circumstances. Then you'll of course will have the situations where different reviewers apply the guidelines slightly differently. Despite that, we do regularly "meet" in a forum environment to discuss caches and guidelines to stive to apply those guidelines uniformly.

 

~erik~

[+Robespierre]

I forgot to mention before a further reason why it would be helpful to know the intent of Groundspeak. The "may not ..." ambiguity makes it very hard to provide translations of the guidelines to other languages even if the translator has a perfect command of English and the other involved language since typically no direct equivalent of the "may not ..." formulation exists. One has to decide for either "will not" or "might not" in some way. As the number of geocachers using gc.com who do not have a reasonably good command of English is growing, the current situation is rather unfortunate.

 

Cezanne

The linguistic ambiguity you attempt to create is only in your own mind. The "intent of Groundspeak" is clearly stated. As far as translation (which I have dealt with very often) from one language to the next, you translate what is clear, and the "wooden-literal" is often not the clear meaning - so you translate the intent. That is unavoidable. How would you translate "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink?" The meaning is clear.

[+TexasGringo]

***That is unavoidable. How would you translate "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink?" The meaning is clear.***

 

So, is is presumed then that only the male horses (Him) you can't make drink the water? or does "Him" represent male / female as a generalization?

 

Lol...just kidding

[+Robespierre]

***That is unavoidable. How would you translate "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink?" The meaning is clear.***

 

So, is is presumed then that only the male horses (Him) you can't make drink the water? or does "Him" represent male / female as a generalization?

 

Lol...just kidding

I don't care who you are. That's funny right there.

[+tozainamboku]

I hope I'm not getting too much on the bad side of the reviewer community. Seems like I may have ruffled some feathers both here and in the discussion of buried caches in making statements that can be interpreted as saying that the reviewers aren't fully open in how they make decisions. I don't really feel this. However, when people post asking for clarification about how the guidelines get interpreted there is often silence from Groundspeak and to a lesser extent from the reviewers. People begin to give their own interpretations or speculate on the "official" interpretation might be.

 

In this case there was a question of why some guidelines say the cache MAY NOT be published while other guidelines say will be archived or will not be be publish. While there may not be any reason for this subtle difference in wording, I simply speculated that it might be a code as to when the review can grant exceptions to to a guideline and when only Groundspeak can grant an exception. Some reviewers have indicate that, in fact, there are two types of guidelines.: those where reviewers are allowed to grant exceptions (e.g. the saturation rule) and those where only Groundspeak can grant an exception (e.g. commercial caches). There probably isn't a secret code, but some cachers may be interested which guidelines fall into which category.

 

Even when a reviewer can't make exceptions on their own they still are the ones to decide if a particular cache falls under one of the guidelines. Commercial caches are a good example. A cache placed at a business is not in itself commercial. A commercial cache is one that solicits customers through a Geocaching.com listing. I strongly suspect that the reviewers often discuss these cache in the reviewer forum in order to try to have a consistent way to make this determination. From time to time the guidelines have been updated. For example, the following was added to guidelines

If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

I know that in the past, some reviewers allowed caches inside of businesses so long as no purchase was necessary. What is not clear is whether the reviewers still have some leeway here. They must now presume that this is a commercial cache, but it is not clear whether a cacher could provide additional information that would remove the presumption.

[+Michael]

Commercial Caches

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

 

Some exceptions can be made. In these situations, permission can be given by Groundspeak. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first. If you do not have advance permission, your reviewer will refer you to Groundspeak.

 

Look at the whole commercial guideline, the bold part was not added by me. It's in the guideline. If you want to get a commercial cache listed you need to ask Groundspeak not your reviewer. Groundspeak is the one that will decide if an exception can be made.

 

No reviewer is an island. They constantly communicate as a group and work together to get as many caches as possible listed. This is the point of using "May not" or "May" instead of "NO" on most of the guidelines. As erik posted above the ability to flex the guidelines allows him to post more caches than he could if they were rigid rules. Groundspeak trusts the volunteer reviewers. They are doing a great job. They interpret the guidelines according to their area in the best way so that as many caches as possible can be published that meet the guidelines. Its not a conspiracy, its not a plot, it's a bunch of people that love what they do and spend way too much time trying to help get caches listed. As stated before we have complete faith in what they do and how they do it.

 

Having said that. If you feel that you are not getting the level of service you should be from the reviewers or forum moderators simply e-mail; reviewers@geocaching.com with your concerns.

This e-mail address is only for reporting concerns regarding Cache reviewers and Forum Moderators.

Happy Geocaching

[+Michael]

Translation issues have been around ever since man has had language. Translating the intent, not word for word has been the solution. Will there be errors? Yes. It happens. But this is not life or death. Its a game. As Jeremy says he built a web site that tracks Tupperware in the woods. Trust me, as much as it feels like it, no one is going to die if their cache is not listed. The world will not stop revolving if a reviewer doesn't properly interpret a guideline. A great way to handle frustration is to get out of the house and go find some caches.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Michael

[+flask]

***That is unavoidable. How would you translate "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink?" The meaning is clear.***

 

 

you know what dorothy parker said.

[+mtn-man]

This is interesting. In the thread on buried caches, Keystone indicated that exceptions are only granted if Groundspeak can contact the landowner to verify permission. I wonder if there is some special code in the guidelines.

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced there is a hidden code in the way the guidelines are written.

I hope I'm not getting too much on the bad side of the reviewer community. Seems like I may have ruffled some feathers both here and in the discussion of buried caches in making statements that can be interpreted as saying that the reviewers aren't fully open in how they make decisions. I don't really feel this. However, when people post asking for clarification about how the guidelines get interpreted there is often silence from Groundspeak and to a lesser extent from the reviewers. People begin to give their own interpretations or speculate on the "official" interpretation might be.

Well, I will say this. You are typically supportive of the site and the reviewers. Your recent posts, however, seem to be trying to drum up some conspiracy theory as if there is some dark room where we try to dream up ways to keep cachers guessing what we are going to do with any given cache assessment. Maybe it is a poor choice of words, but saying there is some "hidden code" makes it sound subversive. It isn't. It is written right in the open. What is written allows for some special interpretation where needed. Erik demonstrates perfectly using real world examples how he uses this depending on the area he is looking at.

 

In this case there was a question of why some guidelines say the cache MAY NOT be published while other guidelines say will be archived or will not be be publish. While there may not be any reason for this subtle difference in wording, I simply speculated that it might be a code as to when the review can grant exceptions to to a guideline and when only Groundspeak can grant an exception. Some reviewers have indicate that, in fact, there are two types of guidelines.: those where reviewers are allowed to grant exceptions (e.g. the saturation rule) and those where only Groundspeak can grant an exception (e.g. commercial caches). There probably isn't a secret code, but some cachers may be interested which guidelines fall into which category.

I think it is simply a misinterpretation. Reviewers have different experience levels. Some feel comfortable making these judgment calls except in the extreme cases. Others feel the need to bounce things off of other reviewers and/or Groundspeak. It isn't an either/or type thing that results in two types of guidelines. It is a gut call from the reviewer as to when they feel they need some additional advice. I've been there myself many times. The answers I get help me to determine what to do in future similar situations. Sometimes I know I can make the decision myself by drawing on these past situations. Being around since 1891, I have asked a lot of these questions before and have something of a feel on how Rothstafari might feel. That has given me real world experience to draw from, but I still occasionally ask.

 

Making more sense?

[+briansnat]

***That is unavoidable. How would you translate "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink?" The meaning is clear.***

 

 

you know what dorothy parker said.

 

 

Was it something about horticulture?

[+flask]

Well, I will say this. You are typically supportive of the site and the reviewers.

 

are you guys keeping track? is there some kind of clandestine rating system that measures loyalty? are there going to be purges?

 

OH, MY GOODNESS! THERE'S A SECRET SCORING SYSTEM! IT'S TRUE!

 

everybody change over to your sockpuppet accounts. hurry, while there's still time. go deep.

 

we'll all meet up at the safe location. you know where. do NOT speak to reviewers, moderators, or anyone that can't give you the password.

 

we'll meet up, regroup, and work out a plan.

[cezanne]

Translation issues have been around ever since man has had language. Translating the intent, not word for word has been the solution.

 

You are right, but I am certainly aware of that. That's exactly one of the reasons why I would like to understand the intent.

 

Will there be errors? Yes. It happens. But this is not life or death. Its a game.

As Jeremy says he built a web site that tracks Tupperware in the woods. Trust me, as much as it feels like it, no one is going to die if their cache is not listed.

 

Of course errors can happen whereever humans are involved. Nobody is perfect.

I also agree with you that geocaching is a game and that it is not at all a tragedy if a certain cache does not get approved.

 

One of the reasons for me to start this topic was, however, that I observed that many rather emotional discussions in diverse geocaching fora could be avoided (or at least would be led in a much more civilized way without insulting each other) if the intent of some statements in the guidelines were clearer. This already holds for countries where English is the native language, but even more for countries with other languages.

 

Moreover, I would like to point out that dicussions often are not only caused by caches which are rejected, but also by caches which have been approved. I know cases where debates over the guidelines became that heavy that breaches within local geocaching communities showed up and contributed to the worsening of the climate.

I will not mention concrete examples here, let me just add that one of the examples I have in mind dealt with a cache in a restaurant in my home country (you have to enter it, but there is no need to eat or drink something there).

This cache which has been approved has caused quite a heavy debate in my home country.

 

Taken for itself as a single incident, this case of course also causes noone to die (to use your language).

While I personally feel that the reviewer did not act in an optimal way (as he first argued that the cache is not a commercial cache in the sense of gc.com because no consumption and no interaction is necessary before changing his way of arguing to saying the permission by Groundspeak has been granted), I also think that such incidents would occur much less frequently if the intent of the guidelines would be become more clear (to everyone!) and also if it would be possible to translate the guidlines to other languages without having to add one's own interpretations. Let me stress that the example I mentioned here is only one of several similar ones I am aware of. The examples concern different countries and different reviewers. My intent here is not to blame the reviewers or any other individual person involved in such incidents.

 

A great way to handle frustration is to get out of the house and go find some caches.

 

No, not in this case. It will not contribute to "repair" the breaches caused by incidents as the above one within a local geocaching community.

 

Cezanne

[+mtn-man]

Well, I have been reading the forums since at least 1878, so I know who is who.

 

Um, hmmm.

 

 

OK, I can't stand it anymore. I have to come clean.

 

There *is* a secret scoring system. Your ranking level with Groundspeak is directly related to the number of times you say milkbone or hamster. That is why, despite being a complete idiot from time to time, I still hang on as a reviewer and forum moderator. As you can see, Keystone and I are both Global Moderators and reviewers. The true reason should now be clear.

 

 

I feel better now. I can finally tell the world. A great weight has been lifted.

 

(Edited to add... mmmm milkbones!)

Edited July 13, 2007 by mtn-man

[+mtn-man]

A great way to handle frustration is to get out of the house and go find some caches.

No, not in this case. It will not contribute to "repair" the breaches caused by incidents as the above one within a local geocaching community.

He meant go out and have some fun. Take your mind off of this and relax for a while. Remember, this is suppose to be fun.

[Keystone]

Milkbones are a rule, not a guideline.

 

[+martinell]

Well, I will say this. You are typically supportive of the site and the reviewers.

 

are you guys keeping track? is there some kind of clandestine rating system that measures loyalty? are there going to be purges?

 

OH, MY GOODNESS! THERE'S A SECRET SCORING SYSTEM! IT'S TRUE!

 

everybody change over to your sockpuppet accounts. hurry, while there's still time. go deep.

 

we'll all meet up at the safe location. you know where. do NOT speak to reviewers, moderators, or anyone that can't give you the password.

 

we'll meet up, regroup, and work out a plan.

 

All hail the great and mighty. All hail the hamster. All hail the milkbones.

 

 

Honestly though - why does everybody keep picking at the rules and picking at the rules? They are fairly straight-forward without being real restrictive. It's not like this is a matter of law where life and death hangs in the balance.

[Luckless]

Milkbone milkbone milkbone

 

This game isn't played in just one city, or just one county or just one state or just one country. This is a world-wide game. It would be impossible to expect Groundspeak or anyone to oversee every placement and action. They do the best they can, but to a large extent it is up to cachers to police themselves. Volunteer reviewers determine to the best of their ability whether a cache meets the guidelines before approving it. If a cacher sees a cache that is questionable they are to bring it to the reviewer's attention to determine whether it should be adjusted or removed. While talking with some local city committee members this morning the importance of the geocaching guidelines and this self policing became all too apparent as they asked about placement of caches and looked for reassurances that there would be no damage done by having the cache in the city. There may be exceptions to the guidelines, but those have to be negotiated with the reviewers or the powers that be at Groundspeak. For the most part the guidelines have been developed to work the best for the geocaching community and their interaction with the rest of the world.

 

What did Dorothy Parker say...dare I ask?

[+Cascade Reviewer]

 

Yes, this hamster is eating a milkbone. The note on the cache page that I found this on says,

 

Dudley, eating a Milk-Bone dog treat. Did you know hamsters like them? Judging by his expression, it's the hamster equivalent of heroin.

 

Mmmmm....milkbones.....

[+Jeep_Dog]

Really? There's a hidden code? Hey.......... Can you let me in on it, because no one's told me about it!

 

Have you tried reading the guidelines backwards?

 

After reading them backwards, the reviewing standards were perfectly clear.

 

What was perfectly unclear, however, was why I had sudden urge to send Hydee chocolate and send $1000 checks to Prime and Rocky Mtn Reviewers.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Jeep_Dog

[+Cascade Reviewer]

Really? There's a hidden code? Hey.......... Can you let me in on it, because no one's told me about it! :)

 

Have you tried reading the guidelines backwards?

 

After reading them backwards, the reviewing standards were perfectly clear.

 

What was perfectly unclear, however, was why I had sudden urge to send Hydee chocolate and send $1000 checks to Prime and Rocky Mtn Reviewers.

 

I like chocolate too (dark chocolate). Who knows...I may help out with Reviewing in Texas or New Mexico some day - you never know.... In fact, I could Review anywhere.

 

Ok. I'm done. I've gotten way off topic and silly, sorry.

[+flask]

 

What did Dorothy Parker say...dare I ask?

 

briansnat is right.

 

when challenged to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence, she said "you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."