Jump to content

unacceptable cache description


Followers 7

Recommended Posts

...If you were that disappointed to see it driving by at 35 MPH, you should have kept going 35 MPH ...
I'd be curious to know what the speed limit in the immediate vicinity of the cache is, as the OP seemed concerned abou speed as well:
... if you saw it at 40 mph.. then slow heck down!
I'd be disappointed to see you driving by at 35 MPH if the speed limit is 20...
Link to comment

So, If I say the cache has an agenda does that mean I hate veterans?

 

(checks batteries in the irony meter)

Not necessarily, but I would have to ask what you thought the agenda was. My point is that I don't see any obvious agenda on the cache page. If you find one you may have some sort of ax to grind.

 

uhmm, veterans?

uhmm, I did a VERY brief search and found LOTS of caches that thank our police, fire, and rescue forces. I don't really see an agenda with any of these caches, any more than I do with the cache in question. Perhaps you do. Or perhaps you are only offended by caches that thank veterans. Only you know the answer to that.

 

I certainly agree that many, 'find the fire fighter memorial' caches aren't an agenda. However I don't make my support of fire fighters my reason why a cache should be listed.

Link to comment

Actually I am surprised someone is going to take their time to try to convince me my opinions are wrong. It was my opinion and still is. The cache sucks. Emailing me about it won't change that, and shouldn't.

 

You have to take the good with the bad when you are a cache owner. But then again this is what is coming to with all the fluff logs people put out there. Logs have gotten to be a joke. Few people tend to be honest anymore because they don't want to hurt someone's feelings, and by doing that, the quality of caches digresses. If you don't like my cache, then log it so. I don't care. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. If I were to email you about it, it would be to find a way to improve it based on feedback, not try to change the feedback to fit what I wanted.

 

Sorry but the inclusion of your name seems to be relevant to the discussion here. Though you may be innocent of the accusation, it is rather suspect that it happened after the nasty response to the OP's email. And as for the OP wanting to explain her reason for placing the cache and try to sway your bleak, and quite rude may I add, opinion in your log, it is human nature to do so as you well know. I noticed that someone left a rather disheartening comment on one of YOUR caches and that you too took the time to write the cacher. Though I am not sure what your email exchange was like, I am sure it was much more polite than the one between you and the OP.

 

v/r

O-Mega

 

Well sometimes you just have to email the finder about their negative logs. So much for "honest" opinions.

Link to comment

So, If I say the cache has an agenda does that mean I hate veterans?

 

(checks batteries in the irony meter)

Not necessarily, but I would have to ask what you thought the agenda was. My point is that I don't see any obvious agenda on the cache page. If you find one you may have some sort of ax to grind.

 

uhmm, veterans?

uhmm, I did a VERY brief search and found LOTS of caches that thank our police, fire, and rescue forces. I don't really see an agenda with any of these caches, any more than I do with the cache in question. Perhaps you do. Or perhaps you are only offended by caches that thank veterans. Only you know the answer to that.

I certainly agree that many, 'find the fire fighter memorial' caches aren't an agenda. However I don't make my support of fire fighters my reason why a cache should be listed.

I checked the page AGAIN. I don't see the word support on it. I guess you just read it that way.
Link to comment

So, If I say the cache has an agenda does that mean I hate veterans?

 

(checks batteries in the irony meter)

Not necessarily, but I would have to ask what you thought the agenda was. My point is that I don't see any obvious agenda on the cache page. If you find one you may have some sort of ax to grind.

 

uhmm, veterans?

uhmm, I did a VERY brief search and found LOTS of caches that thank our police, fire, and rescue forces. I don't really see an agenda with any of these caches, any more than I do with the cache in question. Perhaps you do. Or perhaps you are only offended by caches that thank veterans. Only you know the answer to that.

I certainly agree that many, 'find the fire fighter memorial' caches aren't an agenda. However I don't make my support of fire fighters my reason why a cache should be listed.

I checked the page AGAIN. I don't see the word support on it. I guess you just read it that way.

 

No, I don't either. I'm just reading the responses here in the forums.

Link to comment

I'll be watching this thread to see how it plays out before I decide to become a premium member. I wouldn't want to support a site where political correctness has run amok.

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with keeping political anything out of the sport. If you didn't have the no agenda rule there would be caches all over the place espousing this worthy cause or that one.

 

Then what happens when when one person's idea of a worthy cause is at odds with others? Someone used the example of Planned Parenthood previously. Some people think it's a wonderful organization, while others see it as a tool of the Devil. The Boy Scouts. How could anybody have a problem with the Boy Scouts? But a lot of people do. What about caches promoting Greenpeace or the NRA? Bound to have some controversy there. Maybe even people canceling their memberships because the site would allow a cache promoting one or the other.

 

Then take it to the next level. What about a cache promoting Aryan Nations, Communist Workers Party or even Al-Qaeda? Well most people will say they'd be a no-brainer, of course they shouldn't be published, but these organizations have their ardent supporters too.

 

So what we will have are reviewers who are in the position of having to decide which agendas are "worthy" and which ones aren't. There is sometimes enough controversy over their decisions regarding the guidelines, which is their supposed area of expertise. Imagine the firestorm when a reviewer turns down the pet agenda of sizable portion of geocachers.

 

Nah, it's good the way it is. Let's keep geocaching light and fun and if you want to support the troops, put a bumper sticker on your car, fly your flag, or work to ensure that pro-surrender politicians are not re-elected.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Sorry but the inclusion of your name seems to be relevant to the discussion here. Though you may be innocent of the accusation, it is rather suspect that it happened after the nasty response to the OP's email. And as for the OP wanting to explain her reason for placing the cache and try to sway your bleak, and quite rude may I add, opinion in your log, it is human nature to do so as you well know. I noticed that someone left a rather disheartening comment on one of YOUR caches and that you too took the time to write the cacher. Though I am not sure what your email exchange was like, I am sure it was much more polite than the one between you and the OP.

 

v/r

O-Mega

Actually my name is not relevant at all. What transpired between the cache owner and myself has nothing to do with her cache and the reviewers and whether or not they see an agenda. Personally I don't, but that is neither here nor there. It's for them to say, not me. The cache owner is pissed and decided wrongly, that since I didn't llike the cache I must be the one behind trying to get it removed. I don't have time to worry about a cache 2 hours away from me that I will never see again. I told the owner she needed to upgrade the cache and put some effort into it, and I still think this way. I could care less about her page. that's not what made it lame to me. This entire thread and debate could have been done without my name, my emails, my log, or the personal attacks on me. All this did was spice her story up and give a face to blame.

 

You are correct that I emailed someone who left a negative log on my cache. I emailed them and appoligized for the cache not being up to their likings. I explained how I haven't had time to replace the exact container since the original had been stolen and simply had a replacement out there and explained what the original was like. I felt bad their experience wasn't what was intended. Obviously the cache is much better with the original container since it was voted as the best of the year in this area. I want my caches to be the best they can be. That is a hider's duty. Lame caches inspire other lame caches. I also want honest logs on my caches since that is the only way to get feedback.

Link to comment

So, If I say the cache has an agenda does that mean I hate veterans?

 

(checks batteries in the irony meter)

Not necessarily, but I would have to ask what you thought the agenda was. My point is that I don't see any obvious agenda on the cache page. If you find one you may have some sort of ax to grind.

 

uhmm, veterans?

uhmm, I did a VERY brief search and found LOTS of caches that thank our police, fire, and rescue forces. I don't really see an agenda with any of these caches, any more than I do with the cache in question. Perhaps you do. Or perhaps you are only offended by caches that thank veterans. Only you know the answer to that.

I certainly agree that many, 'find the fire fighter memorial' caches aren't an agenda. However I don't make my support of fire fighters my reason why a cache should be listed.

I checked the page AGAIN. I don't see the word support on it. I guess you just read it that way.

 

No, I don't either. I'm just reading the responses here in the forums.

 

That aspect, I believe, came from the OP content...

 

Ok... im fustrated... placed a cache for the AGT series in our area. Had quiet a time getting my discription cleared by the reveiwer because i stated "support our troops". over several emails and lots of changes, i got it cleared for service... unreluctantly removing my wording.

Link to comment

Either way, I don't really see anything wrong with what pglooking said in his log. Just stating his experience at the cache. Whats the big deal?

 

I agree completely. Logs are just that your experience at the cache.

 

Okay, I was waiting for pghlooking to respond and since he has, I follow up with my thoughts. I also think he should be allowed to respond in this forum to defend himself since a few were taking some shots at him.

 

I have met pghlooking and have some candid discussions about caching and geocoins, passions for both of us, (I even had very heated disagreement which we handled through e-mails - and joke about it now.) Although his log may have been point blank and ruffled a few feathers, I don't think the OP should have put as much weight into his opinion, hundred+ more enjoyed the cache. Feedback should be welcomed regardless of positive or negative. As far as the e-mails go, once again opinions were expressed on both parts and duly noted. I understand her reasoning of sending him her thoughts behind the cache but that again opened the door for a response from pghlooking. I know being new to the sport 6/06 with 300+ finds I find it disturbing the quality/quantity of some of the hides. I am by no means stating the quality of this cache is poor, but I know "cache and dash" (equivalent to a quality issue for me- I hate urban caches/micros- I just don't go for them most of the time) would have been a red flag for me not to go unless it is in the parking lot of were the trail starts....These AGT caches were meant to draw attention to the trails in the area(an Agenda?) or at least that is my perception of the caches and maybe as I mentioned before this was where disappointment arose with this particular cache. I think had I found it I too would have noted my disappointment a little more gently in the log.

 

I have first hand seen the positive aspects this cacher has brought to the community, E-place fundraisers for a fellow cacher that was taken from us too earlier- proceeds go to the cacher's children. There was a recent article in his local press about him taken the time to raise geoccaching awareness, where he introduced a family to caching in a local park. I would have posted but it has his info in the paper...

 

Post #81 I am sure he has found his far share of ammo cans in the woods...but for that part I think the creativity in his caching comes from it takes him to a unique area with a nice hike involved or a unique puzzle or in any case family friendly. He has a few caches out there that are challenging as well.

 

Once again this is exactly as other stated play the game how you like and CACHE ON....

 

I think the point now of the thread is agenda.

 

I hope it hasn't been resolved while I was typing this up.... :laughing:

 

Steel City Babes

Edited by steel city babes
Link to comment

First I would like to thank all who answered my TB vs cache question way back on page #1.

 

Next I would like to second Airhead's statement:

 

I put it to you that you would be very hard pressed to actually create a cache page that does not support some sort of agenda

 

If the mere mention of something can be viewed as an agenda or support, then Groundspeak needs to be consistent in eliminating all verbage except a description of the cache itself. Just as a for instance, I mentioned the town's walking trail in the description on one of my modest collection of caches. My secret agenda for doing that was to point out to other cachers that it was there. Is that wrong since the town benifits from cachers stopping by?

Link to comment

I like to hike in the woods.

 

And all this time, I thought you just liked to drive through parking lots. :rolleyes:

 

OK, no one has directly responded to me, but that's understandable, considering the insane amount of responses. This thing is on American Legion property, and it promotes the American Legion. What do you think the chances are I could put a cache in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and give the history of Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart chain in the cache description? I'd say I'd have no chance whatsoever of pulling that one off. I really don't see a difference here. :laughing:

Link to comment

I like to hike in the woods.

 

And all this time, I thought you just liked to drive through parking lots. :laughing:

 

OK, no one has directly responded to me, but that's understandable, considering the insane amount of responses. This thing is on American Legion property, and it promotes the American Legion. What do you think the chances are I could put a cache in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and give the history of Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart chain in the cache description? I'd say I'd have no chance whatsoever of pulling that one off. I really don't see a difference here. :rolleyes:

 

:DGCYNG6

Link to comment

Then you're back to what was mentioned before. What is the politically correct form of a cache description.

 

Description: Here is a cache. You are welcome to find it if it does not offend you. If it does I apologize profusely because you were able to find it while driving in your vehicle.

 

As for myself, I'm not politically correct by any imagination. I have a sense of humor. At times it can be twisted. While I don't go out of my way to be politically correct I don't go out of my way and step on toes either. Some folks hide caches their way I hide them my way. A few of mine can be seen from over 350' while your driving. You want to know something? Their kid friendly and kids love them. That's what they are there for. You want to hike in the woods we have one of those as well and it's not kid friendly. We don't hide all one type or style. Someone has a problem with them that's their issue. Frankly, if someone gave me that kind of attitude and claimed the smiley I'd be tempted to delete it. They think it's a waste of time to begin with why log it and claim a find? Talk about a walking, talking, breathing, contradiction. After all it isn't about the numbers right?

Edited by Sileny Jizda
Link to comment

Wow... Ya go away for a couple of years (life gets busy at times) and Geocaching.com has gone all PC. The poor OP mentions the American Legion and becomes a target for "pushing an agenda"? How about all the Rails to Trails caches I've logged? Or how about the first cache I found? Promoting dog ownership... We can't have that, my wife is deathly allergic to them! OooohOooooh... How about the first micro I found at a Purple Heart memorial. That's all militaristic and stuff! Good God (uh oh, hope that didn't offend anyone), if someone wants to do a series on abortion clinics in Houston, let them. I'm pro-life, so what, I don't have to visit them. I'm going to have to stay tuned. If this is truly the way this site has evolved, I guess I'm going to have to reconsider sending my hard earned cash every year. :laughing:

Link to comment

Sorry but the inclusion of your name seems to be relevant to the discussion here. Though you may be innocent of the accusation, it is rather suspect that it happened after the nasty response to the OP's email. And as for the OP wanting to explain her reason for placing the cache and try to sway your bleak, and quite rude may I add, opinion in your log, it is human nature to do so as you well know. I noticed that someone left a rather disheartening comment on one of YOUR caches and that you too took the time to write the cacher. Though I am not sure what your email exchange was like, I am sure it was much more polite than the one between you and the OP.

 

v/r

O-Mega

Actually my name is not relevant at all. What transpired between the cache owner and myself has nothing to do with her cache and the reviewers and whether or not they see an agenda. Personally I don't, but that is neither here nor there. It's for them to say, not me. The cache owner is pissed and decided wrongly, that since I didn't llike the cache I must be the one behind trying to get it removed. I don't have time to worry about a cache 2 hours away from me that I will never see again. I told the owner she needed to upgrade the cache and put some effort into it, and I still think this way. I could care less about her page. that's not what made it lame to me. This entire thread and debate could have been done without my name, my emails, my log, or the personal attacks on me. All this did was spice her story up and give a face to blame.

 

You are correct that I emailed someone who left a negative log on my cache. I emailed them and appoligized for the cache not being up to their likings. I explained how I haven't had time to replace the exact container since the original had been stolen and simply had a replacement out there and explained what the original was like. I felt bad their experience wasn't what was intended. Obviously the cache is much better with the original container since it was voted as the best of the year in this area. I want my caches to be the best they can be. That is a hider's duty. Lame caches inspire other lame caches. I also want honest logs on my caches since that is the only way to get feedback.

 

It may be that being at the wrong cache at the right time got you here, but the tone of your post and the tone of your response kept you here. As I don't know you or your character I would not assume anything, but I have seen too many caches get archived because 'someone' knew 'someone' with the power to do so. Now I am not saying that is what may of happened here, but it is worth getting the facts out in the open.

 

As for emailing unhappy cachers, I do it all the time. Just in case they are not used to my hide techniques or they got the wrong impression its best to go to email. The point is that it can all be handled in a civilized manner. If I am disappointed in a cache or its location, I merely give them a TFTC/SL and move on. I don't call them lazy and and I surely don't post it on the logs. I have written cache owners about my feelings toward a cache and SUGGESTED that they correct or archive but in what I hope was a positive way.

Link to comment

this is the section the reviewer wants deleted:

 

The text portion that needs to be removed is, "I would like to thank all those who served before, currently serving and those who will serve in the future. God's speed to you! Thank-you for our FREEDOM! The American Legion was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 American Legion Posts worldwide. These Posts are organized into 55 Departments -- one each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico, and the Philippines."

 

For those who haven't taken the time to re-read the whole thread.

 

 

This thing is on American Legion property, and it promotes the American Legion. What do you think the chances are I could put a cache in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and give the history of Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart chain in the cache description? I'd say I'd have no chance whatsoever of pulling that one off. I really don't see a difference here. blink.gif

 

What does the OP have to do with Sam Walton? Would you thank the millions of underpaid part time employees who slave for a cash grabbing conglomerate?

 

Hey, wait! Maybe that's a great idea. :D:rolleyes::laughing:

Link to comment

I'll be watching this thread to see how it plays out before I decide to become a premium member. I wouldn't want to support a site where political correctness has run amok.

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with keeping political anything out of the sport. If you didn't have the no agenda rule there would be caches all over the place espousing this worthy cause or that one.

 

Then what happens when when one person's idea of a worthy cause is at odds with others? Someone used the example of Planned Parenthood previously. Some people think it's a wonderful organization, while others see it as a tool of the Devil. The Boy Scouts. How could anybody have a problem with the Boy Scouts? But a lot of people do. What about caches promoting Greenpeace or the NRA? Bound to have some controversy there. Maybe even people canceling their memberships because the site would allow a cache promoting one or the other.

 

Then take it to the next level. What about a cache promoting Aryan Nations, Communist Workers Party or even Al-Qaeda? Well most people will say they'd be a no-brainer, of course they shouldn't be published, but these organizations have their ardent supporters too.

 

So what we will have are reviewers who are in the position of having to decide which agendas are "worthy" and which ones aren't. There is sometimes enough controversy over their decisions regarding the guidelines, which is their supposed area of expertise. Imagine the firestorm when a reviewer turns down the pet agenda of sizable portion of geocachers.

 

Nah, it's good the way it is. Let's keep geocaching light and fun and if you want to support the troops, put a bumper sticker on your car, fly your flag, or work to ensure that pro-surrender politicians are not re-elected.

 

I disagree. I think it has everything to do with political correctness. Once again the majority must yield to the minority so we don't hurt feelings.

 

I'm an American. I support our troops. I believe in God. Both of those statements are taboo because of political correctness. Something is going very very wrong in this country.

 

God bless our troops.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

Ok... im fustrated... placed a cache for the AGT series in our area. Had quiet a time getting my discription cleared by the reveiwer because i stated "support our troops". over several emails and lots of changes, i got it cleared for service... unreluctantly removing my wording.

 

a few months go by tons of cachers comments in appreciation to my caches and now i am being re- reviewed again asking me to take out any/all wording relating to the american legion and its history.. (site which cache is located).. this will leave almost no description. This issue came up after i had ONE cacher tell me my cache was lame and a poor excuse for "thanking a vet". (pghlooking)

 

so i looked up keyword... legion on geocache and found three pages of american legion caches and several worded EXACTLY like mine... Why is mine so targeted? one trouble making cacher? so if i dont take it out within 24 hrs.. i will have my cache pulled. I have been a long time member but am ready to PULL my membership over this..

 

I think this is crap! im not supporting any agenda, or even suggesting anyone joins the legion.. Just tring to honor my two children serving. my cache is gc16hm9 sibling soldiers II.

 

Can anyone help me?

I think that it is unfair that only you are being singled out like that. If people don't want legion caches they need to tell all of the people that have them hidden there.
Link to comment

I like to hike in the woods.

 

And all this time, I thought you just liked to drive through parking lots. :D

 

OK, no one has directly responded to me, but that's understandable, considering the insane amount of responses. This thing is on American Legion property, and it promotes the American Legion. What do you think the chances are I could put a cache in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and give the history of Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart chain in the cache description? I'd say I'd have no chance whatsoever of pulling that one off. I really don't see a difference here. :D

 

:DGCYNG6

 

I mean like if I placed this theoretical cache tomorrow. :laughing: Be careful what you link to, that cache would have about as much chance of being approved today as I do of being struck by lightning as I type this. And believe me, I've seen "them" go after older existing caches. :rolleyes:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

I like to hike in the woods.

 

And all this time, I thought you just liked to drive through parking lots. :D

 

OK, no one has directly responded to me, but that's understandable, considering the insane amount of responses. This thing is on American Legion property, and it promotes the American Legion. What do you think the chances are I could put a cache in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and give the history of Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart chain in the cache description? I'd say I'd have no chance whatsoever of pulling that one off. I really don't see a difference here. :D

 

:rolleyes:GCYNG6

 

I mean like if I placed this theoretical cache tomorrow. :laughing: Be careful what you link to, that cache would have about as much chance of being approved today as I do of being struck by lightning as I type this. And believe me, I've seen "them" go after older existing caches. :D

 

Yes, I agree it seems that the 'enforcement' has become much tougher recently. And you need to be careful too, Its raining here :D

Link to comment

What's most amazing to me about this thread is that a very clear majority is saying to leave the cache description as it is.

 

The volunteer reviewers are following the guidelines they've been given by Groundspeak, but nobody from Groundspeak has yet taken the time to give everyone the reasons for the guidelines being interpreted in this manner.

 

It seems at times that Groundspeak wants to have it both ways. Cache owners are responsible for their caches, but only if we like them and the way they are worded.

 

I, too, am a 22 year military veteran, and I feel that because of what I've helped do, we have the satelites in place that allows us to enjoy this sport and to not have to "press 3 for English".

 

Personally, I would like to thank the OP for paying tribute to what has made this country what it is.

 

THANK YOU!!

Link to comment

<snip>

 

You have to take the good with the bad when you are a cache owner. But then again this is what is coming to with all the fluff logs people put out there. Logs have gotten to be a joke. Few people tend to be honest anymore because they don't want to hurt someone's feelings, and by doing that, the quality of caches digresses. If you don't like my cache, then log it so. I don't care. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. If I were to email you about it, it would be to find a way to improve it based on feedback, not try to change the feedback to fit what I wanted.

 

You have to take the good with the bad when you are a cacher, also! Anyone can be honest...we are all expected to be. You can also use a little tact. I'm sure that you were taught that in the military. I see your "honesty" as an excuse to be mean-spirited.

 

And to the Groundspeak Lackeys :

 

If your stance about agendas is so strict...why aren't you ACTIVELY archiving the other caches that support veterans because that is an agenda. ARCHIVE all caches that are LPCs that take you to a big box store because that is an agenda. ARCHIVE all caches that take you to parks because that is an agenda! What you will be left with is a website...Oh, yeah...and CITO. Obviously selective of your enforcement of guidelines. I'll keep my $30...pocket queries aren't that important.

Link to comment

this is the section the reviewer wants deleted:

 

The text portion that needs to be removed is, "I would like to thank all those who served before, currently serving and those who will serve in the future. God's speed to you! Thank-you for our FREEDOM! The American Legion was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 American Legion Posts worldwide. These Posts are organized into 55 Departments -- one each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico, and the Philippines."

 

For those who haven't taken the time to re-read the whole thread.

 

 

Thanks! But it is unclear whether or not the problem is The American Legion, or the "support our troops" rhetoric. Then there's the theory by Mr. T that the combination of the two equals an agenda. I'd have to think this has been discussed a little in the tippy-top secret reviewers forum. :laughing: Obviously, there are boatloads of existing "support our troops" caches, as well as American Legion Post caches.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

What's most amazing to me about this thread is that a very clear majority is saying to leave the cache description as it is.

 

The volunteer reviewers are following the guidelines they've been given by Groundspeak, but nobody from Groundspeak has yet taken the time to give everyone the reasons for the guidelines being interpreted in this manner.

 

It seems at times that Groundspeak wants to have it both ways. Cache owners are responsible for their caches, but only if we like them and the way they are worded.

 

Agreed. It would be a nice touch if The Lackey in charge of reviewers and "agenda enforcing"--for lack of a better term, would come in and explain why this is such a bad cache, and must be changed.

Link to comment
I found it hilarious that one of the times I came and looked at this thread, at the top of the page was an advertisement for JOINING THE ARMY!!!

 

Double standards anyone? You can't promote or appreciate the army but we can?!

 

(overbearing formatting removed by me.)

Those are Google ads. They respond to text in the topic. Write to Google.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

I'm not seeing an agenda either. Its a quick "thanks to the troops" and three sentences that explain the history of the American Legion. Which I liked learning about.

 

Ditto. I looked up the word agenda at Dictionary.com to make sure that it covers my sense of the word, which is that when you have an agenda, you're calling for something to be done (by other people). In other words, some organized plan and/or a call to action is in mind.

 

"Go thank a vet" could, I suppose, be considered an agenda -- though it would be more clearly an agenda if it were something like "my goal is to get 1000 people to go thank a vet; thank a vet and post your stories about vet-thanking here" would be an agenda, because you're calling people to action. "I'm thanking a vet by posting this cache" is not an agenda, it's a statement.

 

I expect -- and hope -- that statements are okay.

Link to comment

I like to hike in the woods.

 

And all this time, I thought you just liked to drive through parking lots. :rolleyes:

 

OK, no one has directly responded to me, but that's understandable, considering the insane amount of responses. This thing is on American Legion property, and it promotes the American Legion. What do you think the chances are I could put a cache in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and give the history of Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart chain in the cache description? I'd say I'd have no chance whatsoever of pulling that one off. I really don't see a difference here. :laughing:

I consider it pretty much traditional to do a little historical and background research and publish it on the cache page. IMO, that is one of the major things that separates a "lame" cache from a "worthy" cache.

 

The OP DID take the time to write a little background and interesting historical perspective for the cache. That should be applauded.

 

If we go to "there is a cache here, it is a film can" for the only legal cache descriptions, GC is certainly wasting a LOT of HTTP technology and caching would become the most BORING pass-time in the world except perhaps gutter-ball bowling (ala recent political showmanship).

 

As many have stated, EVERYTHING promotes an agenda. It is indeed SAD that in the U.S. of A., alleged land of the free, there are so many things we are not FREE to discuss anymore.

 

It is especially SAD when we are penalized for THANKING the very people who are willing to give their lives to preserve the freedom that the PC crowd is trying so desperately to throw in the rubbish bin.

 

There is a MUCH bigger war on than the one in Iraq... It is being fought in our public forums and our public agencies right here at home, and quite frankly, the DOG is sitting lazily by and letting the TAIL wag it. Soon the "land of the free" will be only a distant memory, which itself will be wiped from the history books by the PC revisionists..

Link to comment

Whew, got sucked into this one for many reasons, not the least of which is that I served in the first sand storm under daddy W. I also have a series of my own called Flags of Our Fathers, all of which are puzzle caches at various war memorials and historical markers in the Fox Valley.

 

If my caches fell under the same scrutiny, there's no way that Flags of Our Fathers | Burn Em If You Got Em would have ever gotten published. Save that the cache type is a puzzle and the information needed to make the find is on the page.

 

Now, I have lots of "lame" hides like this, but they almost always for puzzles where the final is merely a means to satisfy the requirement to place something in the field. If I have been into this sport 5 years ago, I would likely have had nothing but virtual caches out there.

 

Truth is, there's room for all kinds and any cache that pays tribute to another human being for any kind of accomplishment is worthy of placement. I'd take your "lame" tribute cache over 10 well cammo'd ammo cans in the woods any day of the week. I open one of those and I see a bunch of worthless stuff. I open yours, and even if the contents are the same, I know that I will get the pleasure of saying something about the tributee when I log the cache and I know that it is the reason the cache exists.

 

I'll not say what's been said many times over. What I will do is suggest some potential solution. My suggestion? Take the facts you have posted and work them into a puzzle. That ups the anti, reduces the traffic which might not be a bad thing, because it keeps these number hunters at bay and the cachers who take the time to solve it are certainly going to appreciate the cache, no matter how easy the find.

Link to comment
First I logged the cache honestly............ I logged it as nicely as I could.

 

I have no problems with people who log a cache honestly, more people should. However, if that is as nicely as you could log it, you need to learn some people skills.

There is no reason to be rude in your logs. You can stifle the attitude, and still get your opinion across. But if you are rude don't be surprised when others are rude back to you.

 

As for the agenda, I suppose every time I find a cache that has an agenda I should post a SBA? If all the caches around here with an agenda were archived I would guess we would lose 30% of our caches!!!

Of course I will have to find them and log them before I try to get rid of them. (wouldn't want them archived before I got MY smiley.) :laughing::rolleyes:

Link to comment

Just to get things straight.

 

Did I miss something somewhere that says that "pghlooking" sent an e-mail complaint to TPTB requesting something be done about the wording on this cache? Who did bring the cache in question before the review board?

 

As for his log to the cache page, the cache owner could have sent him an e-mail asking him to change it to something less then what he did. Or delete it if it ruffled her feathers that bad. It sounds like neither option was explored from what I read, unless I missed something.

 

As for all the "agenda" caches out there.

I lean towards the reviewers side of things.

Have you ever wondered just how many caches they have to look at?

I would bet they mostly skim through the cache pages making sure that the minimum requirements are met first then try and pick out the other stuff.

But when a cache is BROUGHT to their attention, they have to deal with it within the guidelines they are given.

I had an old Forester tell me one time "not to try and pick all the flyspeck out of the pepper as you can't."

 

I would like to start a list of people who have never missed anything in there life because they had other stuff to do.

 

I bet there are a lot of coaches out there.

Any of you ever screwed up and made a wrong call? Umpires - Referees at the kiddies ball games, you ever miss a call? Your a lier if you say no.

 

The point I am trying to make is get off the reviewers case. They do this on a volunteer basis as far as I know. What are you going to do when they all chuck it and say it is not worth it? Which at this rate, I would not blame a single one of them.

 

They have rules to play by as do you. Maybe not in this game but in life.

 

As for the cache in question, how hard is it to change things to get it approved yet maintain the integrity and intent of the cache? It just takes a little wordsmithing to get any cache approved yet stay in the guidelines.

 

My nickels worth. If you want change, meet me on the trails.

 

Logscaler.

Link to comment

Sorry but the inclusion of your name seems to be relevant to the discussion here. Though you may be innocent of the accusation, it is rather suspect that it happened after the nasty response to the OP's email. And as for the OP wanting to explain her reason for placing the cache and try to sway your bleak, and quite rude may I add, opinion in your log, it is human nature to do so as you well know. I noticed that someone left a rather disheartening comment on one of YOUR caches and that you too took the time to write the cacher. Though I am not sure what your email exchange was like, I am sure it was much more polite than the one between you and the OP.

 

v/r

O-Mega

Actually my name is not relevant at all. What transpired between the cache owner and myself has nothing to do with her cache and the reviewers and whether or not they see an agenda. Personally I don't, but that is neither here nor there. It's for them to say, not me. The cache owner is pissed and decided wrongly, that since I didn't llike the cache I must be the one behind trying to get it removed. I don't have time to worry about a cache 2 hours away from me that I will never see again. I told the owner she needed to upgrade the cache and put some effort into it, and I still think this way. I could care less about her page. that's not what made it lame to me. This entire thread and debate could have been done without my name, my emails, my log, or the personal attacks on me. All this did was spice her story up and give a face to blame.

 

You are correct that I emailed someone who left a negative log on my cache. I emailed them and appoligized for the cache not being up to their likings. I explained how I haven't had time to replace the exact container since the original had been stolen and simply had a replacement out there and explained what the original was like. I felt bad their experience wasn't what was intended. Obviously the cache is much better with the original container since it was voted as the best of the year in this area. I want my caches to be the best they can be. That is a hider's duty. Lame caches inspire other lame caches. I also want honest logs on my caches since that is the only way to get feedback.

As usual... two sides to a story. I've learned to stay out of the woe is me threads when it is so one sided and full of assumptions until the second party has a chance to comment.

Link to comment
This thing is on American Legion property, and it promotes the American Legion. What do you think the chances are I could put a cache in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and give the history of Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart chain in the cache description? I'd say I'd have no chance whatsoever of pulling that one off. I really don't see a difference here.

 

Keystone seems to indicate that just having a "support the troops" cache is enough to get it denied.

 

It's possible that the American Legion stuff had nothing to do with it.

 

Either way, at least we have an answer...unacceptable IMO....but it's an answer.

Link to comment

As a Veteran, a Legionnaire, a Geocacher, but mostly because I'm an American, I say:

 

(Image removed by moderator)

 

GOD BLESS AMERICA! HOW'S THAT FOR AN AGENDA?

 

Image removed by moderator?

 

All it was was a picture of Eric Cartman from South Park with one of his famous sayings.

 

It wasn't graphic, profane, or obscene. Why remove it?

 

It may be that freedom of speech is not always within the Groundspeak guidelines?

 

Liberalism approaches Communism.

Link to comment

The last time I checked, Groundspeak was not part of the government. The First Amendment's free speech guarantee only applies to laws passed by the government. As a private company, Groundspeak can decide what content it will allow on its cache pages or in its discussion forums. One of the applicable guidelines is to keep forum posts family-friendly.

 

Let's stay on topic, folks. Thank you.

Link to comment

I just read through all 4 pages of this thread, and I agree with the fact this cache should be left alone, I also agree the reviewer is not at fault at all.

To me the universal ruling of GS to tell all reviewers not to publish Support our Troop caches is what is making me upset. There are many caches out there that support an agenda. Just recently I read about one that required you to go in a establishment and dine, to be able to get the correct coordinates to find the cache. To me that is one that has more of an agenda than saying "I am proud of my kids" and then give history about the American Leigon. I would let the cache stand.

 

 

My husband was a Marine, his father was in the Army, his mother was a WASP, my father was in the Air Force, I could go on and on and on with all the people I know that served in the military. And I am proud of them all.

Link to comment

I just don't get it.

 

Since when is showing a bit of patriotism and pride towards your country called an "Agenda"?? It must have been a very sad day. I suppose this shouldn't surprise me in our PC freakshow of a society -- but it does.

 

I respect the reviewers for doing thier jobs and following the rules set before them. TPTB are the ones that are upsetting me here. I support the hard work the reviewers do.

 

 

 

 

But maybe I dare not - as there I go with my agenda.

Link to comment

I'll be watching this thread to see how it plays out before I decide to become a premium member. I wouldn't want to support a site where political correctness has run amok.

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with keeping political anything out of the sport. If you didn't have the no agenda rule there would be caches all over the place espousing this worthy cause or that one.

 

Then what happens when when one person's idea of a worthy cause is at odds with others? Someone used the example of Planned Parenthood previously. Some people think it's a wonderful organization, while others see it as a tool of the Devil. The Boy Scouts. How could anybody have a problem with the Boy Scouts? But a lot of people do. What about caches promoting Greenpeace or the NRA? Bound to have some controversy there. Maybe even people canceling their memberships because the site would allow a cache promoting one or the other.

 

Then take it to the next level. What about a cache promoting Aryan Nations, Communist Workers Party or even Al-Qaeda? Well most people will say they'd be a no-brainer, of course they shouldn't be published, but these organizations have their ardent supporters too.

 

So what we will have are reviewers who are in the position of having to decide which agendas are "worthy" and which ones aren't. There is sometimes enough controversy over their decisions regarding the guidelines, which is their supposed area of expertise. Imagine the firestorm when a reviewer turns down the pet agenda of sizable portion of geocachers.

 

Nah, it's good the way it is. Let's keep geocaching light and fun and if you want to support the troops, put a bumper sticker on your car, fly your flag, or work to ensure that pro-surrender politicians are not re-elected.

 

I disagree. I think it has everything to do with political correctness. Once again the majority must yield to the minority so we don't hurt feelings.

 

I'm an American. I support our troops. I believe in God. Both of those statements are taboo because of political correctness. Something is going very very wrong in this country.

 

God bless our troops.

 

El Diablo

 

Personally I think it's marketing. This site sells adds and sponsors like garmin buy in. What if all those cache owners made Magellan tribute caches? Jeeps a sponsor, strangely the first I recall of the stricter line on agendas and commercialism was with a Range Rover fan.

Link to comment

There are many caches out there that support an agenda. Just recently I read about one that required you to go in a establishment and dine, to be able to get the correct coordinates to find the cache. To me that is one that has more of an agenda than saying "I am proud of my kids" and then give history about the American Leigon. I would let the cache stand.

Did you also see where Groundspeak retracted that cache because it violated the commercialism section of the listing guidelines? Once the issue came to their attention, appropriate action was taken. I am speculating that this is what happened here, under the solicitation/agenda guideline. Here, however, the issue is easily fixed by modifying the text of the cache page. Apart from that, it's a traditional cache... go there, find it, sign the log.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...