Absolutely Frustrated

[+mtn-man]

Like you I knew there was a distance issue but submitted it hoping it would slide by... it didn't; it's not the Reviewer's fault, he does his job no matter who you are or how long you've been in the game, so I will go fix it!

And I will add that you are being great about it. You have not complained a bit and your kind words in this topic are most appreciated. Thanks TAR.

 

Carbon_n_kids, I'll give a short answer. In life, you have to pick your battles. I've looked at the caches. This isn't one of those times.

 

By the way, the puppymonster says you have a great looking puppy.

Edited March 14, 2008 by mtn-man

[+JohnnyVegas]

Quadsity-When you have been a member long enough you will understand the caches that have less than 1/10 of a mile between them just do not get published, unless there is some like a river between them.

There are lots of guidlines re cache placment.

 

If the examples are so specific as to what makes going less than .1 mile acceptable, why do they not just list them rather than telling people "well, its an arbitrary number based on terrain" ? And personally, if two people place cache's on either side of a river, it can still be confused if neither cache makes mention as to "what side" of the river the cache is on. Of course, this excludes REALLY wide rivers because if you are that far off, then you need to buy a new GPS

the reviewers have progems the display all the caches, this includes all stages of multi caches, puzzle caches etc. Now the best way to hide a cache in any area is to down load all the caches in that area into your GPS before you go out. that you know how close you are to any caches in that area.

If you want to place a cache less than .1 mile from another cache it is your job to explain to the reviewer why you should be allowed to place the cache so close to another cache.

[+uxorious]

It sounds as if a large part of your complaint is the "form letter" answer to your cache. Remember the reviewers have a lot of caches submitted to them, and cannot check each site personally.

 

Caches can be submitted from a very wide area, and what is normal near you may be different a ways away.

 

What the form letter answer does, is allows you to let them know if there may be a reason your cache deserves another look. It is trying to tell you if there is something about the place the reviewer may not be aware of, let him know. The use of the term river, cliff, canyon, or whatever, is just to let you know there may be something he is missing, and give you a chance to explain. Not that there is a river, cliff, or canyon near your cache.

 

Good luck with your caching, and I hope it helps you overcome your fears. I know someone who has had a very similar problem and with her doctor's help, and time was able to overcome the fears.

Edited March 14, 2008 by uxorious

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

Thanks, puppymonster.. I happen to think he's a rather handsome fella as well

 

And.. I wasn't picking a battle - just frustrated. Regardless of my frustration, the answer is the answer. Nothing to combat.

 

Uxorious - good to know that you know someone who was able to overcome the fear. That in itself is encouraging!

[+Quiggle]

What I have to go on is what the cache owner said. While I can't see the caches in the queue, reviewer have the same thing to go on in that cache submssion. What the owner said.

You're not a reviewer, how do you know what Reviewer Jones saw? You know what the OP posted, that's it. As Reviewer Jones pointed out, the caches are 208 and 315 feet away, not 500 (if you read my post further up you would have seen I said that the "500 feet" was the distance combined). FYI, reviewers don't just review a cache based on what the owner says.

 

Please don't make any more assumptions regarding what a reviewer does and state it as fact (this isn't the first time). If someone genuinely has a question or comment about the review process, that's fine. In many cases we're happy to provide answers.

 

Hopefully the OP will rehide their caches somewhere in compliance and get back to enjoying both the hiding and finding aspects of the game.

[jholly]

 

Ya know, ReadyorNot hit on something. It would definitely be nice to have some functionality built into the application that says "your cache may be too close to another cache that has already been approved"

 

You have no idea how many would like that functionality. With a bit of battleship strategy one can figure out the final of a mystery cache with that functionality. I suspect that is why the functionality is not there.

 

Jim

[+Confucius' Cat]

Carbon, what i don't understand is how PLACING a cache is going to help you to overcome your phobias since, in doing so and in maintaining it, you will only be going repeatedly to the same "safe place."

 

i am admittedly NOT familiar with your particular problem, but I have overcome (or perhaps a better word would be "suppressed") a serious fear of heights and I did so by slowly and methodically venturing further and further from my "comfort zone."

 

My understanding is that you are asking for an exception based on your disability and I do not see how such an exception would help anyone- not the other cachers, since the park in question is already saturated, and not you since it will not encourage you to leave your comfort zone.

 

IM (totally non-professional) O, you would be better served by the caching hobby by FINDING rather than PLACING caches at this point in your life.

[+ReadyOrNot]

 

Ya know, ReadyorNot hit on something. It would definitely be nice to have some functionality built into the application that says "your cache may be too close to another cache that has already been approved"

 

You have no idea how many would like that functionality. With a bit of battleship strategy one can figure out the final of a mystery cache with that functionality. I suspect that is why the functionality is not there.

 

Jim

 

Maybe if it told you the location that was too close. You've got no way of knowing between iterations whether the system is referring to cache A, cache B, cache C, or cache D. And for every time that the cache was outside of 528 feet, you'd have a brand new cache submitted. The reviewers might start wondering why you submitted a bunch of caches all within a few minutes of each other....

 

I've never bought that argument.

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

Ya know, ReadyorNot hit on something. It would definitely be nice to have some functionality built into the application that says "your cache may be too close to another cache that has already been approved"

 

You have no idea how many would like that functionality. With a bit of battleship strategy one can figure out the final of a mystery cache with that functionality. I suspect that is why the functionality is not there.

 

Jim

 

Maybe if it told you the location that was too close. You've got no way of knowing between iterations whether the system is referring to cache A, cache B, cache C, or cache D. And for every time that the cache was outside of 528 feet, you'd have a brand new cache submitted. The reviewers might start wondering why you submitted a bunch of caches all within a few minutes of each other....

 

I've never bought that argument.

if the function was done right, the reviewers would not be bombarded by new cache requests for each trial. It would simply be a search function where the potential hide coords could be input and the application would report "GO/NOGO."

 

You are right that it would NOT be very useful for brute-forcing finals, since there would be no specifics as to what cache caused a "nogo" and furthermore, the two-mile guideline on bogus coords would allow way too much territory to hack in most cases.

 

You might be able to brute-force unlisted stages of a multi, but what would be the purpose of that? You can simply got to the first stage and carry on from there.

 

Even if you were successful in divining an unknown cache, you would not know if it was the cache you were looking for without actually going and finding it. Conceivably you could be repeating this "hack/hunt/hack again" cycle for eons.

 

To brute-force, you gotta start in the right ballpark- unless you got a LOT of free time on your hands.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

 

Ya know, ReadyorNot hit on something. It would definitely be nice to have some functionality built into the application that says "your cache may be too close to another cache that has already been approved"

 

You have no idea how many would like that functionality. With a bit of battleship strategy one can figure out the final of a mystery cache with that functionality. I suspect that is why the functionality is not there.

 

Jim

 

Maybe if it told you the location that was too close. You've got no way of knowing between iterations whether the system is referring to cache A, cache B, cache C, or cache D. And for every time that the cache was outside of 528 feet, you'd have a brand new cache submitted. The reviewers might start wondering why you submitted a bunch of caches all within a few minutes of each other....

 

I've never bought that argument.

As mentioned earlier, you already have that functionality - it's called a PQ!

 

Load a PQ of 100 or 500 caches, whatever your GPS holds, centered on the site you have in mind into your GPS, go to the place where you want to place your cache, and hit Find > Nearest.

 

It will give you a list of caches starting with the nearest to you and radiating out. There will be no question whether you are too close to an existing cache.

 

If you are 528'+ from the nearest cache, hide yours, go home and list it - no problem!

[Keystone]

It's at this point in the "coordinate checker debate" that I always chime in with the same story.

 

Awhile back, there was a devilish puzzle cache that went unsolved / unfound for many many months. A group of determined geocachers knew that the posted coordinates needed to be within two miles of the actual cache location. They got out their maps, drew a two-mile circle, and looked at all the places where a cache might be hidden. Then they started hiding caches and multicaches, covering likely hiding spots in a grid pattern like the "Battleship" game. They knew that Keystone would be a stickler for compliance with the 528 foot "rule", and would say "sorry, a final of a puzzle cache is too close" if they scored a hit. This would narrow the search area down to a 528 foot circle that could be searched by brute force.

 

One of those caches turned out to be 300-something feet from the elusive puzzle cache container. But Keystone, wise to what was going on, allowed that cache to be published. And that, folks, is why it's a guideline, not a rule -- and why we have humans reviewing caches instead of a computer. I beat them at their own game, and protected the secret of the puzzle cache. We all laugh about it now that the puzzle cache is archived.

 

If folks would go to those lengths over a period of weeks and months using just the existing tools, imagine what they'd do with a coordinate checker that included puzzle cache locations.

[+ReadyOrNot]

As mentioned earlier, you already have that functionality - it's called a PQ!

 

That won't help you with multi cache stages or final stages to puzzle caches.

[+Confucius' Cat]

If folks would go to those lengths over a period of weeks and months using just the existing tools, imagine what they'd do with a coordinate checker that included puzzle cache locations.

Spending weeks or months working on a puzzle is not unusual at all, whether legitimately or looking for a 'back door" (which IMO is an equally valid way to solve a puzzle). (historical note: in one Star Trek episode, Kirk is applauded for being the only one to solve the unsolvable test simulation- by reprogramming the test)

 

My point is that the GO/NOGO application won't really make it any easier to do this. We have coordinate checkers now that many puzzle cachers use and I don't hear any complaints about people using them to "cheat."

 

Also I might point out that your response "you are too close to a puzzle cache" IS an additional "clue" that would not be present in a go/nogo application. The only logical information to be gleaned from a simple "nogo" is that it is too close to "something." Unless the hacker has found and listed every stage of every cache in the search area, they would have no way of knowing if the "something" was a puzzle cache at all, let alone the particular one they are looking for.

 

I think your story belongs in the "every blind hog is bound to stumble over an acorn once-in-a-while" category. They could have done equally well just by drawing their circles and searching likely hollow trees. (I have found caches this way- but indeed it's like getting struck by lightning)

 

Even with it narrowed to a 528' circle, a matchbox is gonna be HARD to find.

 

IMO the benefits of a coordinate checker far outweigh the potential for abuse. It would certainly make YOUR job easier if all submissions were pre-filtered for such a simple guideline. A cacher could always go around the filter by submitting the cache by email to the reviewer, even if the application automatically refused to submit too close caches.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Confucius' Cat

[+Sapience Trek]

We each use our own templates, nobody manages it for us.

 

There is no one at Groundspeak that helps ensure that the review process is consistant for everyone across all countries? Such as provided a checklist that is used?

 

We try to be as consistent as possible across all areas, but each country/state/town may have unique circumstances that require unique review processes. That is why we have reviewers scattered all across the world instead of being holed up in an office in Seattle.

 

Because we're all human, well most of us, we also make mistakes and slight deviations in interpretations of the guidelines. If it were all black and white we could programatically create a review-bot and then we would have more time for getting out geocaching ourselves!

[+Kit Fox]

It's at this point in the "coordinate checker debate" that I always chime in with the same story.

 

Awhile back, there was a devilish puzzle cache that went unsolved / unfound for many many months. A group of determined geocachers knew that the posted coordinates needed to be within two miles of the actual cache location. They got out their maps, drew a two-mile circle, and looked at all the places where a cache might be hidden. Then they started hiding caches and multicaches, covering likely hiding spots in a grid pattern like the "Battleship" game. They knew that Keystone would be a stickler for compliance with the 528 foot "rule", and would say "sorry, a final of a puzzle cache is too close" if they scored a hit. This would narrow the search area down to a 528 foot circle that could be searched by brute force.

 

One of those caches turned out to be 300-something feet from the elusive puzzle cache container. But Keystone, wise to what was going on, allowed that cache to be published. And that, folks, is why it's a guideline, not a rule -- and why we have humans reviewing caches instead of a computer. I beat them at their own game, and protected the secret of the puzzle cache. We all laugh about it now that the puzzle cache is archived.

 

If folks would go to those lengths over a period of weeks and months using just the existing tools, imagine what they'd do with a coordinate checker that included puzzle cache locations.

 

I really enjoyed that story the first time you mentioned it. Since the cache is now archived, would mind posting the WP # for the puzzle and the cache that almost landed on top of it ?

[+quadcity007]

Kit Fox said:

 

And [you're] not a reviewer so it really doesn't matter how you see it.

 

Nice attitude. I can only hope I don't have your attitude after geocaching for as long as you have and posting 500+ times. ... Yea, I can really see where that is paying off for you quite well.

 

You wouldn't work full-time for the IRS would you?

Edited March 15, 2008 by quadcity007

[+quadcity007]

Quadsity-When you have been a member long enough you will understand the caches that have less than 1/10 of a mile between them just do not get published, unless there is some like a river between them.

There are lots of guidlines re cache placment.

 

While I don't agree that being a geocacher for a certain period of time will bestoy some sense of expert knowledge onto me, I do agree with you that the general guidlines are there for a reason.

 

So, are they "guidelines" or are they "rules"? According to the reviewer himself, they are "guidelines".

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Well, according to the February 20, 2008 update, the are entitled "Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines".

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

People (some people not everyone) seem to want to yield the word "guideline" like a sword. And want to take the meaning to be that they are guidelines and not rules (which is accurate) so that means that they can be broken anytime they want them broken (which is not accurate).

 

It seems to me that the reason they are called guidelines is to allow the reviewers the flexibility IF the situation warrants it. Not simply because they (or a cacher) wants to.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Motorcycle_Mama

[jholly]

Kit Fox said:

 

And [you're] not a reviewer so it really doesn't matter how you see it.

 

Nice attitude. I can only hope I don't have your attitude after geocaching for as long as you have and posting 500+ times. ... Yea, I can really see where that is paying off for you quite well.

 

You wouldn't work full-time for the IRS would you?

 

Sorry Quadcity, you don't push the publish button so I must agree with Kit Fox, it really doesn't matter how you see it, it only matters how the reviewer sees it. After all, that is what he/she is getting paid for. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, they don't get paid.

 

Need some suggestions on good nomex undies

 

Jim

[+quadcity007]

Kit Fox said:

 

And [you're] not a reviewer so it really doesn't matter how you see it.

 

Nice attitude. I can only hope I don't have your attitude after geocaching for as long as you have and posting 500+ times. ... Yea, I can really see where that is paying off for you quite well.

 

You wouldn't work full-time for the IRS would you?

 

Sorry Quadcity, you don't push the publish button so I must agree with Kit Fox, it really doesn't matter how you see it, it only matters how the reviewer sees it. After all, that is what he/she is getting paid for. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, they don't get paid.

 

Need some suggestions on good nomex undies

 

Jim

 

Another winner with an attidude problem. I may not be an long-timer geocacher, but I do know there is no "rule" which says a mediator or a reviewer is all-knowing. That is why we have forums, so everyone can provide their opinion.

 

But I've got no problem with being wrong. I stated my mind. Wasn't the first, nor will it be the last time I'm in the wrong.

[+Kit Fox]

 

Another winner with an attidude problem. I may not be an long-timer geocacher, but I do know there is no "rule" which says a mediator or a reviewer is all-knowing. That is why we have forums, so everyone can provide their opinion.

 

But I've got no problem with being wrong. I stated my mind. Wasn't the first, nor will it be the last time I'm in the wrong.

 

Relax kid Jholly and I don't have an attitude, but it appears you have a hot temper. No I don't work for the IRS.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Another winner with an attidude problem. I may not be an long-timer geocacher, but I do know there is no "rule" which says a mediator or a reviewer is all-knowing. That is why we have forums, so everyone can provide their opinion.

 

But I've got no problem with being wrong. I stated my mind. Wasn't the first, nor will it be the last time I'm in the wrong.

What you are failing to understand is that it is the reviewers (following the guidelines set by Groundspeak) who determine what caches get published.

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing that is said in these forums has any influence on that process. "We" (meaning posters in the forums) don't get to decide about caches being published. The only other authority is Groundspeak itself.

 

And while I don't subscribe to the theory that if you are new to a site that you don't have anything of value to add, it's arrogant to think that after being on the site for less than a month that you can think that you understand better than others who have been around for a while.

 

You might want to take a step back, slow down, read the site for a while to find out how it works, and then form an opinion.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+tozainamboku]

Another winner with an attidude problem. I may not be an long-timer geocacher, but I do know there is no "rule" which says a mediator or a reviewer is all-knowing. That is why we have forums, so everyone can provide their opinion.

 

But I've got no problem with being wrong. I stated my mind. Wasn't the first, nor will it be the last time I'm in the wrong.

What you are failing to understand is that it is the reviewers (following the guidelines set by Groundspeak) who determine what caches get published.

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing that is said in these forums has any influence on that process. "We" (meaning posters in the forums) don't get to decide about caches being published. The only other authority is Groundspeak itself.

 

And while I don't subscribe to the theory that if you are new to a site that you don't have anything of value to add, it's arrogant to think that after being on the site for less than a month that you can think that you understand better than others who have been around for a while.

 

You might want to take a step back, slow down, read the site for a while to find out how it works, and then form an opinion.

This is not true. There is an appeals process to challenge reviewer decisions and it is spelled out in the guidelines themselves. I've bolded the relevant section just in case that you missed it.

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

[+quadcity007]

 

This is not true. There is an appeals process to challenge reviewer decisions and it is spelled out in the guidelines themselves. I've bolded the relevant section just in case that you missed it.

 

Thank goodness. It's not a communist society I geocache in.

[+quadcity007]

 

You might want to take a step back, slow down, read the site for a while to find out how it works, and then form an opinion.

 

Fortunately, I'm able to assimulate information quickly and form an opinion. This means there is no correlation between time and the ability to understand information.

 

It blows me away the attitude of some people in the forum. Just because someone is new to geocaching does NOT mean they are unable to form a valid opinion. True, not everyone may agree with my opinion but that's to be expected.

 

Remember, everybody has an opinion. There's no rule in geocaching regarding how one should form an opinion, is there?

[Keystone]

There's no rule in geocaching regarding how one should form an opinion, is there?

Nope. Only regarding how one should express an opinion.

 

Also, I can think of several guideline changes influenced by feedback from the community, here in these Forums and elsewhere. That's in addition to the appeals process for individual caches, as noted above.

[+SKS]

Carbon,

Arbitrary doesn't mean Random. The 500 ft rule has a good reason for being in place as stated by others here. So, don't get discouraged Hope you find (another) good spot for your cache. Good Luck.

[+A Team Vallejo]

Heres my rant,

I used to have problems with the reviewers when I first started hiding caches. I kept forgetting to check the cords. before I published the cache. It's was quite frustrating. I always check first now and I check the GPS for nearby caches. The multi's are a pain sometimes. I tried to hide one and I knew where all the pieces to the multi were but the cacher who hide the cache gave bogus coords to be published. sometimes you can get the cachers close to move there caches.

 

My problem with them now is with using names like Macdonald's if the reviewer put a hold on it so they can check with the admin. about it they will not let it get published for days weeks or even 5 weeks They said I was advertising. and the Macdonald's wasn't a Macdonald's anymore.

 

I guess you just have to deal with them. I see geocaching.com loosing cachers to navicache or terracaching. if they keep adding rules and if enough people get fed up enough.

 

Happy Caching!

[+Confucius' Cat]

My problem with them now is with using names like Macdonald's if the reviewer put a hold on it so they can check with the admin. about it they will not let it get published for days weeks or even 5 weeks They said I was advertising. and the Macdonald's wasn't a Macdonald's anymore.

 

I guess you just have to deal with them. I see geocaching.com loosing cachers to navicache or terracaching. if they keep adding rules and if enough people get fed up enough.

 

Happy Caching!

I have never experienced a back-and-forth dialogue with a reviewer that took that long. i would suspect that your experience is a fluke.

 

Losing cachers to the other sites? No doubt it happens, but until a WHOLE LOT of GC cachers jump ship, doing so is tantamount to "cachercide."

 

People who leave rather than "dealing with them" mostly only hurt themselves and if they are true caching addicts, they will likely return.

[Clan Riffster]

People who leave rather than "dealing with them" mostly only hurt themselves

Agreed. And, might I add; Good Riddance. If someone has a personality trait that prevents them from coping with this game, (and/or it's players/reviewers/etc), then I can't imagine how they manage to make it through a single day in the real world.

[+Adventure.AS]

OP ... I know that one of the pleasures that I have from placing a cache is receiving the emails with the find logs. I have a cache, Fisherman's Wharf (GC185CA), that is a popluar spot for dog walkers. I would be happy to let you adopt this cache and would be willing to maintain it for you.

 

 

If you prefer, I could place a new cache for you near my home, that you could submit on your own (with the reviewer note that you have someone who will maintain it for you, assuming that a reviewer would approve such an arrangement.) I would also be happy to post lots of pictures for you.

[+Too Tall John]

OP ... I know that one of the pleasures that I have from placing a cache is receiving the emails with the find logs. I have a cache, Fisherman's Wharf (GC185CA), that is a popluar spot for dog walkers. I would be happy to let you adopt this cache and would be willing to maintain it for you.

 

If you prefer, I could place a new cache for you near my home, that you could submit on your own (with the reviewer note that you have someone who will maintain it for you, assuming that a reviewer would approve such an arrangement.) I would also be happy to post lots of pictures for you.

Wow, that's a lovely offer!

 

That's all I have to say about that.

 

[+snowfrog]

While I think there should provisions in place to insure that cachers who have limited abilities or mobility, can have opportunities to enjoy the sport as well,....we provide handicapped parking for those who need it. The sad fact is that it is too often abused by people who "borrow" somebody else's sign or sticker, thus denying those who actually deserve it. Sadly, I can see the same thing happening here, if softening of the guidelines becomes frequent. The reviewers job is difficult enough and I can't imagine enlarging the gray area. IMO, guidelines are too subjective anyway and 10 different people will interpret those guidelines in different ways, both the hider and reviewer. Some things just need to be flat out rules, for or against, to avoid the broad interpretation and chaos that will result from that. I personally think the 528' rule is too much, but that is precisely the problem, because many will not agree. Guidelines lead to inconsistency, the honor system just doesn't work, that's why there are moderators and reviewers. Rules should be in place and the hides should be expected to meet them. However, if in the present guideline form, a cacher is denied a placement and wants to be reconsidered or granted an exception, perhaps a better way to resolve it would be to have the decision made by a three reviewer panel, and hopefully limit the inconsistency or different interpretations of the gray area.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Kit Fox said:

 

And [you're] not a reviewer so it really doesn't matter how you see it.

 

Nice attitude. I can only hope I don't have your attitude after geocaching for as long as you have and posting 500+ times. ... Yea, I can really see where that is paying off for you quite well.

 

You wouldn't work full-time for the IRS would you?

 

Talk about nice attitudes...

 

A very kind gesture was given you, it's more than I'd give you, but hey...attitudes as yours turn me away. Maybe you should take Motorcycle Mamma's advice and SLOW DOWN AND RELAX a bit! Stop thinking the geocaching world is out for you and just relax!! Now, you might think I'm upset, mad...whatever. You are far from the truth! I am very relaxed and even-headed with this post and HOPE you'll read it with the thought that we're all trying to help NOT rail against you!

 

I'm guessing you are just having a bad couple days and that your true attitude is a much friendlier one....I hope we get a chance to visit with that attitude as well!

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

Wow, Maxima - what a fantastic offer! I truly appreciate it although I couldn't do that. It is your hide and truly your credit (but maybe one day while I am visiting up there I can find this one!). Thank you tho!

[+A Team Vallejo]

Heres my rant,

I used to have problems with the reviewers when I first started hiding caches. I kept forgetting to check the cords. before I published the cache. It's was quite frustrating. I always check first now and I check the GPS for nearby caches. The multi's are a pain sometimes. I tried to hide one and I knew where all the pieces to the multi were but the cacher who hide the cache gave bogus coords to be published. sometimes you can get the cachers close to move there caches.

 

My problem with them now is with using names like Macdonald's if the reviewer put a hold on it so they can check with the admin. about it they will not let it get published for days weeks or even 5 weeks They said I was advertising. and the Macdonald's wasn't a Macdonald's anymore.

 

I guess you just have to deal with them. I see geocaching.com loosing cachers to navicache or terracaching. if they keep adding rules and if enough people get fed up enough.

 

Happy Caching!

 

Yes 2 times they have done this What they do is the reviewers don't want to deal with it(the responsibility) so they send it to the admin. Then they have to decide what should happen to the cache. It was not back and forth dialogs. yes I waited 5 weeks for them to make a decision or hear from them. Thats how long it took for them to decide if they would publish the cache. Then I went to publish another one and they did it to me again. I told them forget it and just archived it. If you make something to difficult it's not worth it. Do you understand? I don't need to sit around and wait a month and wonder what there decision is going to be.

There is other places to put caches.

 

The same thing goes with the boy scouts or any organizations- paperwork- red tape and adults. The boyscouts have so much paperwork and rules it's stupid.

 

Rules rules rules- Just like the fall of the roman empire.

 

I don't see being hasseled by reviewers as fun and challenging.

[+gof1]

I never have problems getting a cache published. I ensure that I hold strictly to the guidelines. I give the reviewer all the info I can up front, including a detailed description of all parts. I include all waypoints, and edit the attributes before I submit the cache. It isn't unusual for one of my caches to be published the same day as submitted. Once in under two minutes. That is what happens when you do your homework ahead of time.

 

I often wonder how many cachers don't even bother to read the guidelines.

[+A Team Vallejo]

Another winner with an attidude problem. I may not be an long-timer geocacher, but I do know there is no "rule" which says a mediator or a reviewer is all-knowing. That is why we have forums, so everyone can provide their opinion.

 

But I've got no problem with being wrong. I stated my mind. Wasn't the first, nor will it be the last time I'm in the wrong.

What you are failing to understand is that it is the reviewers (following the guidelines set by Groundspeak) who determine what caches get published.

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing that is said in these forums has any influence on that process. "We" (meaning posters in the forums) don't get to decide about caches being published. The only other authority is Groundspeak itself.

 

And while I don't subscribe to the theory that if you are new to a site that you don't have anything of value to add, it's arrogant to think that after being on the site for less than a month that you can think that you understand better than others who have been around for a while.

 

You might want to take a step back, slow down, read the site for a while to find out how it works, and then form an opinion.

This is not true. There is an appeals process to challenge reviewer decisions and it is spelled out in the guidelines themselves. I've bolded the relevant section just in case that you missed it.

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

I archived it not the reviewer as I said I don't need to wait around to see if they are going to allow the cache to be published

There is lots of places to hide caches.

There is lots of places to hide caches

There is lots of places to hide caches

 

The End

[+A Team Vallejo]

I see it dosen't take much to get some of you excited does it?

I wasn't looking for comments on what I said. just telling a story.

Heeee you guy's are funny!java script:emoticon('', 'smid_13')

[Keystone]

Yes 2 times they have done this What they do is the reviewers don't want to deal with it(the responsibility) so they send it to the admin. Then they have to decide what should happen to the cache. It was not back and forth dialogs. yes I waited 5 weeks for them to make a decision or hear from them. Thats how long it took for them to decide if they would publish the cache. Then I went to publish another one and they did it to me again. I told them forget it and just archived it. If you make something to difficult it's not worth it. Do you understand? I don't need to sit around and wait a month and wonder what there decision is going to be.

There is other places to put caches.

 

The same thing goes with the boy scouts or any organizations- paperwork- red tape and adults. The boyscouts have so much paperwork and rules it's stupid.

 

Rules rules rules- Just like the fall of the roman empire.

 

I don't see being hasseled by reviewers as fun and challenging.

Your reviewer was just doing their job. We're under very clear instructions to refer all commercial caches to Groundspeak. We do not have the authority to determine what commercial content is permissible. You should have received a polite note quoting the guideline -- which says that permission is needed from Groundspeak -- and directing you to contact them.

 

For you to transform your own ignorance of the rules into "the reviewers are hassling me" is quite a leap. We have no choice except to refer you to Groundspeak. There is no evil intent involved.

 

If you wish to avoid long delays, hide caches that meet the listing guidelines.

[+A Team Vallejo]

Yes 2 times they have done this What they do is the reviewers don't want to deal with it(the responsibility) so they send it to the admin. Then they have to decide what should happen to the cache. It was not back and forth dialogs. yes I waited 5 weeks for them to make a decision or hear from them. Thats how long it took for them to decide if they would publish the cache. Then I went to publish another one and they did it to me again. I told them forget it and just archived it. If you make something to difficult it's not worth it. Do you understand? I don't need to sit around and wait a month and wonder what there decision is going to be.

There is other places to put caches.

 

The same thing goes with the boy scouts or any organizations- paperwork- red tape and adults. The boyscouts have so much paperwork and rules it's stupid.

 

Rules rules rules- Just like the fall of the roman empire.

 

I don't see being hasseled by reviewers as fun and challenging.

Your reviewer was just doing their job. We're under very clear instructions to refer all commercial caches to Groundspeak. We do not have the authority to determine what commercial content is permissible. You should have received a polite note quoting the guideline -- which says that permission is needed from Groundspeak -- and directing you to contact them.

 

For you to transform your own ignorance of the rules into "the reviewers are hassling me" is quite a leap. We have no choice except to refer you to Groundspeak. There is no evil intent involved.

 

If you wish to avoid long delays, hide caches that meet the listing guidelines.

Ok They didn't publish the cache they made it hard (a hassel) ok I don't need a hard time about a cache I even changed the name and he still said he couldn't approve it that is a hassel

The other cache making me wait 5weeks thats not a hassel?

it's suposed to be fun and somtimes the reviewers can make it not fun

waiting 5weeks was not fun and having to think about waiting 5weeks again not fun now do you get it. I archived it.

 

 

can we move on ?

it's not a big deal

[+gof1]

So you can rail against the reviewers but a reviewer can't defend their position?

Hardly seems fair now does it?

[+A Team Vallejo]

So you can rail against the reviewers but a reviewer can't defend their position?

Hardly seems fair now does it?

 

I didn't write the rules

it's not about the reviewer. it's about the rules didn't you see my other post.

you make enough rules and you won't have anything to review

get a Helmut. cause you will need one in your car you see where this is going then you will need one in your house. it's all about control I think. Control=No Freedom.... maybe thats it.

 

Did you hear about the elephant hunter?

 

He got a hernia from carrying the Decoy

 

Ok it's safe to laugh now

[+Too Tall John]

Your reviewer was just doing their job. We're under very clear instructions to refer all commercial caches to Groundspeak. We do not have the authority to determine what commercial content is permissible. You should have received a polite note quoting the guideline -- which says that permission is needed from Groundspeak -- and directing you to contact them.

 

For you to transform your own ignorance of the rules into "the reviewers are hassling me" is quite a leap. We have no choice except to refer you to Groundspeak. There is no evil intent involved.

 

If you wish to avoid long delays, hide caches that meet the listing guidelines.

Ok They didn't publish the cache they made it hard (a hassel) ok I don't need a hard time about a cache I even changed the name and he still said he couldn't approve it that is a hassel

The other cache making me wait 5weeks thats not a hassel?

it's suposed to be fun and somtimes the reviewers can make it not fun

waiting 5weeks was not fun and having to think about waiting 5weeks again not fun now do you get it. I archived it.

So, a reviewer explains that they have no choice but to refer commercial caches to Groundspeak, and you still think they are trying to hassle you? Sounds like you're just whining because they didn't try to break the rules for you. Sounds like you are the hassle.

 

Hassle

 

Hassle

 

Hassle

 

It's "le" not "el"!!

it's not about the reviewer. it's about the rules

The rules you are complaining about are there for a good reason. If it weren't for rules, I'd have to worry (more) about some nutcase coming to kill me because they didn't like this post. If it weren't for rules, there would be people driving down the "wrong" side of the road, except it wouldn't be wrong... but they'd still be dead when they had a head-on. Rules are important, especially the ones that protect others, even if it is only protecting me from having to read your commercial cache.

 

get a Helmut.

What is a Helmut? Is that a manservant from Germany? Edited March 16, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+gof1]

This is the post I responded to. The one where you whined about the reviewers doing the job they VOLUNTEERED to do. The one in which you claimed to have been hassled in. The one a reviewer tried to explain to you how the system works. The one in which you got P.O.ed because he didn't say you were right.

If you can speak your piece in complaint then I see no cause for you to get upset when Keystone speaks his.

 

Yes 2 times they have done this What they do is the reviewers don't want to deal with it(the responsibility) so they send it to the admin. Then they have to decide what should happen to the cache. It was not back and forth dialogs. yes I waited 5 weeks for them to make a decision or hear from them. Thats how long it took for them to decide if they would publish the cache. Then I went to publish another one and they did it to me again. I told them forget it and just archived it. If you make something to difficult it's not worth it. Do you understand? I don't need to sit around and wait a month and wonder what there decision is going to be.

There is other places to put caches.

 

The same thing goes with the boy scouts or any organizations- paperwork- red tape and adults. The boyscouts have so much paperwork and rules it's stupid.

 

Rules rules rules- Just like the fall of the roman empire.

 

I don't see being hasseled by reviewers as fun and challenging.

Your reviewer was just doing their job. We're under very clear instructions to refer all commercial caches to Groundspeak. We do not have the authority to determine what commercial content is permissible. You should have received a polite note quoting the guideline -- which says that permission is needed from Groundspeak -- and directing you to contact them.

 

For you to transform your own ignorance of the rules into "the reviewers are hassling me" is quite a leap. We have no choice except to refer you to Groundspeak. There is no evil intent involved.

 

If you wish to avoid long delays, hide caches that meet the listing guidelines.

Ok They didn't publish the cache they made it hard (a hassel) ok I don't need a hard time about a cache I even changed the name and he still said he couldn't approve it that is a hassel

The other cache making me wait 5weeks thats not a hassel?

it's suposed to be fun and somtimes the reviewers can make it not fun

waiting 5weeks was not fun and having to think about waiting 5weeks again not fun now do you get it. I archived it.

 

 

can we move on ?

it's not a big deal

[+A Team Vallejo]

Your reviewer was just doing their job. We're under very clear instructions to refer all commercial caches to Groundspeak. We do not have the authority to determine what commercial content is permissible. You should have received a polite note quoting the guideline -- which says that permission is needed from Groundspeak -- and directing you to contact them.

 

For you to transform your own ignorance of the rules into "the reviewers are hassling me" is quite a leap. We have no choice except to refer you to Groundspeak. There is no evil intent involved.

 

If you wish to avoid long delays, hide caches that meet the listing guidelines.

Ok They didn't publish the cache they made it hard (a hassel) ok I don't need a hard time about a cache I even changed the name and he still said he couldn't approve it that is a hassel

The other cache making me wait 5weeks thats not a hassel?

it's suposed to be fun and somtimes the reviewers can make it not fun

waiting 5weeks was not fun and having to think about waiting 5weeks again not fun now do you get it. I archived it.

So, a reviewer explains that they have no choice but to refer commercial caches to Groundspeak, and you still think they are trying to hassle you? Sounds like you're just whining because they didn't try to break the rules for you. Sounds like you are the hassle.

 

Hassle

 

Hassle

 

Hassle

 

It's "le" not "el"!!

it's not about the reviewer. it's about the rules

The rules you are complaining about are there for a good reason. If it weren't for rules, I'd have to worry (more) about some nutcase coming to kill me because they didn't like this post. If it weren't for rules, there would be people driving down the "wrong" side of the road, except it wouldn't be wrong... but they'd still be dead when they had a head-on. Rules are important, especially the ones that protect others, even if it is only protecting me from having to read your commercial cache.

 

get a Helmut.

What is a Helmut? Is that a manservant from Germany?

Dude it wasn't a commercial cache that was the one I had to wait on for 5wks

The Macdonald's one I called it Old McDonalds farm

I said it used to be a Mcdonalds restaurant now tell me how someone could get hurt by this. The whole thing about advertising is just like you having to where a helmut in your car.

Now instead of the reviewer telling me what was wrong with the cache and how I could fix it -he automatically sent it to Groundspeak

This is a game

Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me

[Keystone]

I said it used to be a Mcdonalds restaurant now tell me how someone could get hurt by this. The whole thing about advertising is just like you having to where a helmut in your car.

Now instead of the reviewer telling me what was wrong with the cache and how I could fix it -he automatically sent it to Groundspeak

This is a game

Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me

Once you mention a business name, the cache is commercial and needs to be referred to Groundspeak. The reviewer is not allowed to listen to your explanation, or offer suggestions on how to fix it. You've now been told this at least twice by your reviewer, twice by me in the forums, and twice by other posters.

 

I suggest that you ask Helmut to get off your head so that this information can sink in.

[+A Team Vallejo]

I said it used to be a Mcdonalds restaurant now tell me how someone could get hurt by this. The whole thing about advertising is just like you having to where a helmut in your car.

Now instead of the reviewer telling me what was wrong with the cache and how I could fix it -he automatically sent it to Groundspeak

This is a game

Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me

Once you mention a business name, the cache is commercial and needs to be referred to Groundspeak. The reviewer is not allowed to listen to your explanation, or offer suggestions on how to fix it. You've now been told this at least twice by your reviewer, twice by me in the forums, and twice by other posters.

 

I suggest that you ask Helmut to get off your head so that this information can sink in.

Theres the problem

mentioning a business name- thats stupid. ok so tell me why I would want to go thru all the waiting to have a cache published Mr smarty pants just because I said it used to be a Mcdonalds.

 

And that other guy up there about a communist country it's all ready a communist country The Goverment controls everything.

[+gof1]

Because the guy that owns the website says so. You don't get to make the rules. If you don't like that go start your own site.

 

A bit of free advice. Don't call people names in the forums, especially someone as well respected as Keystone.

[+Too Tall John]

I suggest that you ask Helmut to get off your head so that this information can sink in.

My wife can't figure out why I can't stop laughing.

Theres the problem

mentioning a business name- thats stupid. ok so tell me why I would want to go thru all the waiting to have a cache published Mr smarty pants just because I said it used to be a Mcdonalds.

 

And that other guy up there about a communist country it's all ready a communist country The Goverment controls everything.

What you are complaining about is a decision that was made by a business. A business that is free to operate because we live in a country that runs on capitalism. The accusations you make are ridiculous. In case you missed why, here it is again:

• The rules you are upset about were not made by our country, or any country, for that matter.
  
• The fact that the above mentioned business is a great example of how capitalism works & allows businesses to set their own rules shows that communism has nothing to do with it.
  
• The fact that even after I hinted at you spelling "helmet" wrong you continue to do it.
  

get a Helmut.

What is a Helmut? Is that a manservant from Germany?

Dude... where a helmut in your car.

Oh... You meant "wear," right? Edited March 17, 2008 by Too Tall John