Have you had a reviewer pick on you

[+wimseyguy]

Something witty to compensate for the dreaded double and triple postings.

Edited September 28, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+wimseyguy]

Something profound to compensate for the dreaded double and triple postings.

 

Three is my lucky number though. I was born on the third, am the oldest of three children, and wore #3 on my soccer and lacrosse uniforms all through school and college.

Edited September 28, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+Ambrosia]

Wow. Those dogs really are golden.

 

Three is a good number.

[+DanOCan]

Never had a reviewer pick on me. I once had to move one of my newly hidden caches because it was too close to a micro I had forgotten about but that was my fault, not his/hers.

[+Juicepig]

I get picked on by my local reviewer every day

 

Well ya, but your reviewer is "above the law". He picks on everybody!

[+Prime Suspect]

Of course a golden path just might mean that you are following a team of sled dogs in the snow.

But if they dogs know where they're going, is that a bad thing?

[+SwampYankee]

Sounds simple to me. Dry it out, find out where its leaking, put in new pen or pencil, dry log book and perhaps move it to a better spot. Reviewer will be happy, caches will be happy, you will be happy. Case solved.

 

Life is better in the KISS mode.

 

SwampYankee

[+Misha]

I have had Zero issues with reviewers They're fair if you play fair, they are not out to get you, unless you have been unfair to them.

 

Misha

Edited September 29, 2007 by Misha

[JN 1013]

gee i dono. once it took me three atempts to publish my cache and i biked to each location so i was sorta mad. as for reporting them i dont know

[Keystone]

gee i dono. once it took me three atempts to publish my cache and i biked to each location so i was sorta mad. as for reporting them i dont know

How is it the reviewer's fault if you placed a cache next to a school, or just a few hundred feet from another cache? It looked to me like your reviewer was just doing their job to follow the published listing guidelines. I didn't see any flames from your reviewer on your cache pages, so I'm puzzled by your statement.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Well...

 

I'm having trouble getting my hypodermic needle exchange cache "Junkie Drawer" published even after offering to provide clean needles. The reviewer says it's because it's buried between the railroad tracks behind the elementary school but I'm pretty sure it's because I requested a special GC#---GCSMACK.

 

I've got an appeal in...

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

gee i dono. once it took me three atempts to publish my cache and i biked to each location so i was sorta mad. as for reporting them i dont know

How is it the reviewer's fault if you placed a cache next to a school, or just a few hundred feet from another cache? It looked to me like your reviewer was just doing their job to follow the published listing guidelines. I didn't see any flames from your reviewer on your cache pages, so I'm puzzled by your statement.

Thanks for saying what I was thinking! I was tempted to write a rather testy reply to this poster, when, after looking at his/her post more closely and at her/his profile page a bit, I realized that he/she is likely still in elementary school. Nonetheless, there is still an attitude which seeps through in the post from this person.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Well...

 

I'm having trouble getting my hypodermic needle exchange cache "Junkie Drawer" published even after offering to provide clean needles. The reviewer says it's because it's buried between the railroad tracks behind the elementary school but I'm pretty sure it's because I requested a special GC#---GCSMACK.

 

I've got an appeal in...

I agree with you that you are being treated unfairly by a bad reviewer. I wish you the best in getting this problem resolved. And, if the cache is published, I will be happy to be one of the first finders to show support for you against the tyranny of evil power-hungry reviewers.

 

And, I know what you are talking about; I have experiences much the same myself: Much as I have indicated recently in another thread, I am having a really bad problem here with two local reviewers regarding my new Radioactive Isotope Hotel cache; I first tried to emplace it in West Virginia, and for some bizarre reason, Keystone -- overreactive knee-jerk commie-sympathizer reviewer that he is -- rejected it for 15 different reasons. He continued to refuse to publish it even when I reminded him that there needed be no fear about genetic mutation among the local residents due to radiation leaking from the cache container, because everyone knows that West Virginia residents are already radioactive hillbilly mutants and therefore very robust, hardy and radiation-resistant. sigh...

 

Anyway, getting on with my sad story, I then decided to move the cache into Maryland, where I resubmitted it, since I figured that Quiggle would be sure to approve it. Well, guess what? Quiggle refused to publish the cache as well, citing 23 different "irreparable violation" reasons! The nerve! As a result of this insanity exhibited by these reviewers, I not only have an appeal in process, but I am also petitioning GC to fire both of these reviewers and allow me -- with my demonstrated capacity for great wisdom and insight -- to take over their roles. ...grrrrrrr!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Well...

 

I'm having trouble getting my hypodermic needle exchange cache "Junkie Drawer" published even after offering to provide clean needles. The reviewer says it's because it's buried between the railroad tracks behind the elementary school but I'm pretty sure it's because I requested a special GC#---GCSMACK.

 

I've got an appeal in...

I agree with you that you are being treated unfairly by a bad reviewer. I wish you the best in getting this problem resolved. And, if the cache is approved, I will be happy to be one of the first finders to show support for you against the tyranny of evil power-hungry reviewers.

 

And, I know what you are talking about; I have experiences much the same myself: Much as I have indicated recently in another thread, I am having a really bad problem here with two local reviewers regarding my new Radioactive Isotope Hotel cache; I first tried to emplace it in West Virginia, and for some bizarre reason, Keystone -- overreactive knee-jerk commie-sympathizer reviewer that he is -- rejected it for 15 different reasons. He continued to refuse to publish it even when I reminded him that there needed be no fear about genetic mutation among the local residents due to radiation leaking from the cache container, because everyone knows that West Virginia residents are already radioactive hillbilly mutants and therefore very robust, hardy and radiation-resistant. sigh...

 

Anyway, getting on with my sad story, I then decided to move the cache into Maryland, where I resubmitted it, since I figured that Quiggle would be sure to approve it. Well, guess what? Quiggle refused to publish the cache as well, citing 23 different "irreparable violation" reasons! The nerve! As a result of this insanity exhibited by these reviewers, I not only have an appeal in process, but I am also petitioning GC to fire both of these reviewers and allow me -- with my demonstrated capacity for great wisdom and insight -- to take over their roles. ...grrrrrrr!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is exactly why I didn't mention that the needles I was supplying were radioactive. I have followed the sad saga of that unfairly unpublished cache... I'd be proud to have you sign your name on the log, just let me know when you're heading this way so that I can move my nanny goats to the far pasture.

 

Please watch what you say about hillbillies, I is one...

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Well...

 

I'm having trouble getting my hypodermic needle exchange cache "Junkie Drawer" published even after offering to provide clean needles. The reviewer says it's because it's buried between the railroad tracks behind the elementary school but I'm pretty sure it's because I requested a special GC#---GCSMACK.

 

I've got an appeal in...

I agree with you that you are being treated unfairly by a bad reviewer. I wish you the best in getting this problem resolved. And, if the cache is approved, I will be happy to be one of the first finders to show support for you against the tyranny of evil power-hungry reviewers.

 

And, I know what you are talking about; I have experiences much the same myself: Much as I have indicated recently in another thread, I am having a really bad problem here with two local reviewers regarding my new Radioactive Isotope Hotel cache; I first tried to emplace it in West Virginia, and for some bizarre reason, Keystone -- overreactive knee-jerk commie-sympathizer reviewer that he is -- rejected it for 15 different reasons. He continued to refuse to publish it even when I reminded him that there needed be no fear about genetic mutation among the local residents due to radiation leaking from the cache container, because everyone knows that West Virginia residents are already radioactive hillbilly mutants and therefore very robust, hardy and radiation-resistant. sigh...

 

Anyway, getting on with my sad story, I then decided to move the cache into Maryland, where I resubmitted it, since I figured that Quiggle would be sure to approve it. Well, guess what? Quiggle refused to publish the cache as well, citing 23 different "irreparable violation" reasons! The nerve! As a result of this insanity exhibited by these reviewers, I not only have an appeal in process, but I am also petitioning GC to fire both of these reviewers and allow me -- with my demonstrated capacity for great wisdom and insight -- to take over their roles. ...grrrrrrr!

 

 

 

 

 

That is exactly why I didn't mention that the needles I was supplying were radioactive. I have followed the sad saga of that unfairly unpublished cache... I'd be proud to have you sign your name on the log, just let me know when you're heading this way so that I can move my nanny goats to the far pasture.

 

Please watch what you say about hillbillies, I is one...

Thanks for your great note. If you ever need radioactive or even fissionable materials for your cache, please let me know; I can ship some to you via Fedex Overnite. Yes, I will be happy to log your cache, and please: no need to move the nanny goats to a far field -- I am sure that I would enjoy meeting them.

 

And, as for being a hillbilly, I live in the mountains in a wilderness area, and drive an old beater for a car, so I fully qualify as one as well!

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Well...

 

I'm having trouble getting my hypodermic needle exchange cache "Junkie Drawer" published even after offering to provide clean needles. The reviewer says it's because it's buried between the railroad tracks behind the elementary school but I'm pretty sure it's because I requested a special GC#---GCSMACK.

 

I've got an appeal in...

I agree with you that you are being treated unfairly by a bad reviewer. I wish you the best in getting this problem resolved. And, if the cache is approved, I will be happy to be one of the first finders to show support for you against the tyranny of evil power-hungry reviewers.

 

And, I know what you are talking about; I have experiences much the same myself: Much as I have indicated recently in another thread, I am having a really bad problem here with two local reviewers regarding my new Radioactive Isotope Hotel cache; I first tried to emplace it in West Virginia, and for some bizarre reason, Keystone -- overreactive knee-jerk commie-sympathizer reviewer that he is -- rejected it for 15 different reasons. He continued to refuse to publish it even when I reminded him that there needed be no fear about genetic mutation among the local residents due to radiation leaking from the cache container, because everyone knows that West Virginia residents are already radioactive hillbilly mutants and therefore very robust, hardy and radiation-resistant. sigh...

 

Anyway, getting on with my sad story, I then decided to move the cache into Maryland, where I resubmitted it, since I figured that Quiggle would be sure to approve it. Well, guess what? Quiggle refused to publish the cache as well, citing 23 different "irreparable violation" reasons! The nerve! As a result of this insanity exhibited by these reviewers, I not only have an appeal in process, but I am also petitioning GC to fire both of these reviewers and allow me -- with my demonstrated capacity for great wisdom and insight -- to take over their roles. ...grrrrrrr!

 

 

 

 

 

That is exactly why I didn't mention that the needles I was supplying were radioactive. I have followed the sad saga of that unfairly unpublished cache... I'd be proud to have you sign your name on the log, just let me know when you're heading this way so that I can move my nanny goats to the far pasture.

 

Please watch what you say about hillbillies, I is one...

Thanks for your great note. If you ever need radioactive or even fissionable materials for your cache, please let me know; I can ship some to you via Fedex Overnite. Yes, I will be happy to log your cache, and please: no need to move the nanny goats to a far field -- I am sure that I would enjoy meeting them.

 

And, as for being a hillbilly, I live in the mountains in a wilderness area, and drive an old beater for a car, so I fully qualify as one as well!

 

Sorry man, I'm moving the goats.

[+Ambrosia]

Well...

 

I'm having trouble getting my hypodermic needle exchange cache "Junkie Drawer" published even after offering to provide clean needles. The reviewer says it's because it's buried between the railroad tracks behind the elementary school but I'm pretty sure it's because I requested a special GC#---GCSMACK.

 

I've got an appeal in...

I agree with you that you are being treated unfairly by a bad reviewer. I wish you the best in getting this problem resolved. And, if the cache is approved published, I will be happy to be one of the first finders to show support for you against the tyranny of evil power-hungry reviewers.

[+Team Cotati]

No I haven't and after reading thru this smarmy carp I'm danged glad of it. Have mercy.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Well...

 

I'm having trouble getting my hypodermic needle exchange cache "Junkie Drawer" published even after offering to provide clean needles. The reviewer says it's because it's buried between the railroad tracks behind the elementary school but I'm pretty sure it's because I requested a special GC#---GCSMACK.

 

I've got an appeal in...

I agree with you that you are being treated unfairly by a bad reviewer. I wish you the best in getting this problem resolved. And, if the cache is approved, I will be happy to be one of the first finders to show support for you against the tyranny of evil power-hungry reviewers.

 

And, I know what you are talking about; I have experiences much the same myself: Much as I have indicated recently in another thread, I am having a really bad problem here with two local reviewers regarding my new Radioactive Isotope Hotel cache; I first tried to emplace it in West Virginia, and for some bizarre reason, Keystone -- overreactive knee-jerk commie-sympathizer reviewer that he is -- rejected it for 15 different reasons. He continued to refuse to publish it even when I reminded him that there needed be no fear about genetic mutation among the local residents due to radiation leaking from the cache container, because everyone knows that West Virginia residents are already radioactive hillbilly mutants and therefore very robust, hardy and radiation-resistant. sigh...

 

Anyway, getting on with my sad story, I then decided to move the cache into Maryland, where I resubmitted it, since I figured that Quiggle would be sure to approve it. Well, guess what? Quiggle refused to publish the cache as well, citing 23 different "irreparable violation" reasons! The nerve! As a result of this insanity exhibited by these reviewers, I not only have an appeal in process, but I am also petitioning GC to fire both of these reviewers and allow me -- with my demonstrated capacity for great wisdom and insight -- to take over their roles. ...grrrrrrr!

 

 

 

 

 

That is exactly why I didn't mention that the needles I was supplying were radioactive. I have followed the sad saga of that unfairly unpublished cache... I'd be proud to have you sign your name on the log, just let me know when you're heading this way so that I can move my nanny goats to the far pasture.

 

Please watch what you say about hillbillies, I is one...

Thanks for your great note. If you ever need radioactive or even fissionable materials for your cache, please let me know; I can ship some to you via Fedex Overnite. Yes, I will be happy to log your cache, and please: no need to move the nanny goats to a far field -- I am sure that I would enjoy meeting them.

 

And, as for being a hillbilly, I live in the mountains in a wilderness area, and drive an old beater for a car, so I fully qualify as one as well!

 

Sorry man, I'm moving the goats.

NO! AAAARRRGGGGHHH!

[+paleolith]

And yet, there are 2 caches that were published that are likely in a forbidden area. One of the caches flat out states its in an area that has a policy of forbidding geocaches. I am about to put out several of my own caches and Im a bit chicken of reporting these 2 caches out of concern my future postings will be scrutinized all the more.

I'd guess it's exactly the opposite.

 

A few weeks ago I privately reported to a reviewer that a cache was in a forbidden zone. Actually I think my message stated the type of area and asked if this was allowed. At the reviewer's request, I located additional information, due to some ambiguity in readily available online maps, even though having visited the area I knew with absolute certainty the area classification. The reviewer was convinced, and archived the cache. (This was not an intentional violation, just a seriously clueless hider. The one finder reported that the cache didn't even contain a log book.)

 

More recently, I submitted several hides to the same reviewer. They were approved almost instantaneously.

 

I figure that I had shown my ability and willingness to do my homework regarding cache placement. I'm not saying the reviewer gave me special treatment, nor that I went into this with any intent other than to make a bad placement right. But I think that in the process I built a good reputation with the reviewer.

 

Edward

[+paleolith]

Sorry man, I'm moving the goats.

I suppose this is the reward I get for responding to an earlier posting before reading the entire thread.

 

Edward

[+briansnat]

I have had Zero issues with reviewers They're fair if you play fair, they are not out to get you, unless you have been unfair to them.

 

Misha

 

That's just it. If you do your homework ahead of time and make sure your caches comply with the guidelines, and as long as you take care of your caches you won't have "run-ins" with your reviewer.

 

If you frequently place caches that violate the guidelines, don't take care of your existing caches and especially if you are caught lying to your reviewer, it's just natural that your future submisions will

probably undergo closer scrutiny.

[+ironman114]

And yet, there are 2 caches that were published that are likely in a forbidden area. One of the caches flat out states its in an area that has a policy of forbidding geocaches. I am about to put out several of my own caches and Im a bit chicken of reporting these 2 caches out of concern my future postings will be scrutinized all the more.

I'd guess it's exactly the opposite.

 

A few weeks ago I privately reported to a reviewer that a cache was in a forbidden zone. Actually I think my message stated the type of area and asked if this was allowed. At the reviewer's request, I located additional information, due to some ambiguity in readily available online maps, even though having visited the area I knew with absolute certainty the area classification. The reviewer was convinced, and archived the cache. (This was not an intentional violation, just a seriously clueless hider. The one finder reported that the cache didn't even contain a log book.)

 

More recently, I submitted several hides to the same reviewer. They were approved almost instantaneously.

 

I figure that I had shown my ability and willingness to do my homework regarding cache placement. I'm not saying the reviewer gave me special treatment, nor that I went into this with any intent other than to make a bad placement right. But I think that in the process I built a good reputation with the reviewer.

 

Edward

 

Sometimes policies on caching can change and a cache that was in an OK area is now in an area that may be a gray or not allowed area. The reviewer may not be aware of the policy change or be too busy publishing new caches to check maps of all the areas for past caches that don't meet current guidelines.

 

As for problems with reviewers I have had very little. My first hide was less than 528 feet from another cache and only 15-20 feet from RR tracks. It was also across the street from the police dept. When I submitted it I made a note telling the reviewer that the other cache was diagonally across the river and that you had to follow one way streets and cross bridges to get between them. Also that the rr tracks were a seldom used dead end rr spur that ran into the street 20 feet from the cache and the cache was in a tree, next to a bench, 2 feet the paved trail in the park. The trail also ran alongside the tracks and street further along.

 

The one cache did not have a name that would be friendly towards an entity that does not allow caching and there is work nationwide to change this policy. Plus 3 maps showed the coordinates inside their domain.

 

With a name change and some better coordinates that showed in at least 2 maps that it was outside their domain I got my cache published.

 

You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar!!

[+SharpShin']

Sorry man, I'm moving the goats.

 

I know Vinny! Vinny is a friend of mine! Vinny would never, I repeat never, harm the goats!

 

YEAH - RIGHT!!! :o

Edited October 4, 2007 by SharpShin'

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Sorry man, I'm moving the goats.

 

I know Vinny! Vinny is a friend of mine! Vinny would never, I repeat never, harm the goats!

 

YEAH - RIGHT!!!

 

I wasn't exactly worried about him actually harming the goats.

 

It's just that they're my goats...

 

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Sorry man, I'm moving the goats.

I know Vinny! Vinny is a friend of mine! Vinny would never, I repeat never, harm the goats!

 

YEAH - RIGHT!!!

I wasn't exactly worried about him actually harming the goats.

 

It's just that they're my goats...

 

Wow! I do not know him, but this "Vinny" about whom you are all writing sounds like a first-class whacko! A major walking disaster! Please do me a favor and keep him away from our area (i.e., Frederick, Maryland) and our ducks and hens. Thanks!

[Keystone]

I think we've played out the goat joke. There have been some good on-topic discussions, and I'd like for those to continue. If you'd like to chat about goats, start a separate thread. Thanks.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

No I havent had a reviewer pick on me, that I know of. And yet, there are 2 caches that were published that are likely in a forbidden area. One of the caches flat out states its in an area that has a policy of forbidding geocaches. I am about to put out several of my own caches and Im a bit chicken of reporting these 2 caches out of concern my future postings will be scrutinized all the more.

Sometimes we miss things, and if it was me I would appreciate knowing I missed it.

Yes, we all miss things at times, no matter how careful we are; that is part of being human. I have had a pretty easy time with the five reviewers across the US whose job it was to review my Psycho caches, because I tend to be very careful when it comes to details and I try to make sure to tell the reviewer everything they might imaginably need to know -- including the potentially negative stuff as well -- in order to make an informed decision. And, I never hide any possible negative factors from the reviewer. As a result, it seems that a certain amount of trust has been established, and thus I tend to have a pretty easeful time when it comes to publishing my Psycho caches. However, even with those precautions, mistakes can be made, and here is a case in point:

 

A couple of years ago, while visiting friends out West, I placed an extreme cache in a cave (which was and is frequently visited by members of the public; it is a local tourist attraction) high in the mountains in the Rockies. I placed the cache only after careful research using paper maps and online maps to ensure that the site was a legal spot in a National Forest, and only after consulting with several experienced hunters who knew the area well and with a friend who was a ranger in a nearby National park. I also consulted extensively with my friend Greta, who was my co-placer, as she is a backcountry guide in that area. When we were satisfied that the hide was legal, we made the long hike with an elevation climb of over 3000 feet to emplace the cache, and all went well.

 

A few months later, I learned first through a fellow caver and also through my membership in the NSS that there was some chance that the federal government might soon pass legislation outlawing placement of caches in any somewhat pristine or somewhat virgin (i.e., not visited by the public) caves located on federal property. This was not necessarily too much of a problem, since the hide was in a cave which was locally well-known and which was frequently visited by hikes and horseback riders. However, I also learned at about the same time that there was a small chance that the cave might actually be located in a protected federal area where caches are not normally allowed. At that point, I consulted with my friend who is a ranger in a nearby National park, and she spent many hours researching the location matter for me. Her search of maps, both printed and online, seemed to confirm that the cave was indeed located in a national forest, and if that were true, all would be well. So, at that point, everythinn seemed fine...

 

However, I decided to push further in my research, and with my encouragement, my ranger friend (she is truly an angel) kindly spent another couple of hours tracking down the administrators and rangers who oversee the vast wilderness region in question, and after even more digging, she was finally able to discover the rather obscure fact that the cave was actually indeed located not in the National Forest, as the maps had indicated, but rather in a protected federal area where caches are not allowed. She and her fellow rangers were of the opinion that I should leave the cache in place, as the cache would not significantly increase traffic to the cave. Likewise, the GC reviewer was not particularly concerned -- due to an amalgam of all the above factors -- about the issue when I contacted him to announce the potential problems and the fact that I was considering removing the cache and archiving the listing; he chose to leave the final decision entirely up to me. Within two weeks, I decided to archive the listing, and, by prior arrangement, a local extreme cacher made the trip in to the site as soon as the spring thaw allowed passage to the cave once again (the site is accessible for only five months out of the year due to extreme conditions), retrieved the cache, signed the log (thus becoming the First to Find and Last to Find) and took the cache container home with him.

 

In this case, once I uncovered two separate pieces of information which suggested to me that the cache placement might be unwise or illegal, I did not hesitate to contact the reviewer and present my concerns. And, as other posters here have iterated, I am sure that such immediate and forthright disclosure on my part -- as well as the steps which I subsequently took (i.e., much additional research, followed by disabling and archival) -- did nothing to cause distrust on the part of the reviewers or to harm my reputation as a hider, and rather, the entire matter likely only built greater trust between myself and the reviewer community. Indeed, while I have emplaced Psycho caches in four states across the USA, I have never yet submitted a Psycho cache which was refused publication by a reviewer. There have been many times where the primary reviewer has needed to consult with other reviewers over possibly sticky or downright bizarre issues, particularly in the case of Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations, but ultimately, each and every cache was published. Of course, it is also true that I have had to discard a number of potential Psycho cache hides before ever submitting them, because painstaking research eventually showed the the placement might be illegal or it might be too difficult to obtain clear permission.