Cache Event not approved

April 8, 2008

We wanted our 9th event cache to be held on April 5, 2008. We had 2 members of our group drive 3 hours each way out to the location to get exact coordinates for the campsite. Once the coordinates were verified we put the cache into the queue on March 20 a few days ahead of the 2 week minimum required. We called the event Helter Skelter as we would be visiting Barker Ranch earlier in the day. Below is the exact wording submitted for approval.

For some unknown reason Krypton deemed our cache to have commercial content. We emailed Kryton to find out why he would not approve the event and to what we had to change to get it approved. We received no response from Krypton.

Marko Ramius, Roadrunner and Nomex all viewed the event page description and did not see any commercial content.

We are upset at the complete breakdown in communication of Krypton and would like an answer to what exactly he assumed was commercial content. We expect accountability.

April 8, 2008

Calling out a volunteer reviewer in the forums. That should be effective.

22k · April 8, 2008

Isn't this what you would send to Groundspeak?

Why didn't you send an email as directed?

Edited April 8, 2008 by BlueDeuce

38.2k · April 8, 2008

Well did you e-mail appeals@Groundspeak.com and what did they say?

2k · April 8, 2008

Edit to self moderate. (That isn't as bad as it sounds, is it?)

OK, once again I'm doing two things at once. My response at this point would have been unfair piling on.

Sorry.

Edited April 8, 2008 by gof1

6.7k · April 8, 2008

Have faith in the appeals process before bringing such complaints to the public.

I have appealed several things - sometimes they over-rule the Reviewer, sometimes they over-rule me... either way they are fair about it.

One thing about it... if Reviewer-friends give you an opinion and you then use it in public to embarrass another Reviewer you can pretty much bet that you won't be getting such private advice in the future!!

8.9k · April 8, 2008

Just a hunch here...you called it Helter Skelter and plan to visit Barker's Ranch...the PTB see a connection between the two and thus see you as promoting Barker's Ranch? I have an idea as I've never been there, but maybe if there's noting there to promote, maybe they see a connection with The Beatles. Commercial guidelines have changed, you're not allowed to promote any business.

They're not saying you can't do it because you're charging anything!

14.3k · April 8, 2008

Have faith in the appeals process before bringing such complaints to the public.

I agree.

22.2k · April 8, 2008

It is important to note that the OP only posted an excerpt from the submitted cache description. I can see the entire page, with the many lines of text that followed what was captured above. I can see why the reviewer referred the event organizer to Groundspeak. I also see where Groundspeak may quite possibly have said "yes" to the event. It is unfortunate that the organizers chose to disregard the reviewer's request.

1.6k · April 8, 2008

So.... the OP posted only a portion of the description but stated that it was "the exact wording submitted for approval"; quoted opinions from other reviewers/mods and used it to basically say that his reviewer was wrong; and short-cut the standard approval process by trying to raise a rukus in the forums??

I don't see many rubber-stamp approvals in this group's future

7.2k · April 8, 2008

We wanted our 9th event cache to be held on April 5, 2008. We had 2 members of our group drive 3 hours each way out to the location to get exact coordinates for the campsite. Once the coordinates were verified we put the cache into the queue on March 20 a few days ahead of the 2 week minimum required. We called the event Helter Skelter as we would be visiting Barker Ranch earlier in the day. Below is the exact wording submitted for approval.

What Keystone said.

The part in bold above should probably have read "Below is a very small part of the wording submitted for approval".

8.9k · April 8, 2008

That should really strengthen their ties with their reviewer....now shouldn't it??

WOW!

5.3k · April 8, 2008

This is not the first time someone has started a thread without offering all the information re an issue, I am sure it will not be the last time it happens.

My guess is that it would have been easy to edit the cache page to get the event published.

Edited April 8, 2008 by JohnnyVegas

2.5k · April 8, 2008

We wanted our 9th event cache to be held on April 5, 2008. We had 2 members of our group drive 3 hours each way out to the location to get exact coordinates for the campsite. Once the coordinates were verified we put the cache into the queue on March 20 a few days ahead of the 2 week minimum required. We called the event Helter Skelter as we would be visiting Barker Ranch earlier in the day. Below is the exact wording submitted for approval.
What Keystone said.

The part in bold above should probably have read "Below is a very small part of the wording submitted for approval".

Heh... I thought it odd that the screen capture excluded a large portion of the page, especially when visiting the Ranch is described in the post but not on the page.

Thanks, Keystone & mtn-man, for verifying my suspicions.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Too Tall John

April 8, 2008

So spill the beans SoCal. Post the whole listing.

1.3k · April 8, 2008

You edited the page before you posted it here? Maybe you just left out the trivial, unimportant stuff. If you post the whole listing we can be much more on point with our responses!

5.3k · April 8, 2008

It's disappointing that someone would come to the forums asking for input and be less than truthful in their accounting of the situation.

3.9k · April 8, 2008

So.... the OP posted only a portion of the description but stated that it was "the exact wording submitted for approval"; quoted opinions from other reviewers/mods and used it to basically say that his reviewer was wrong; and short-cut the standard approval process by trying to raise a rukus in the forums??

I don't see many rubber-stamp approvals in this group's future

This news from Keystone simply confirmed what my gut sense told me the minute I read the OP's post. In fact, in light of what has emerged, the OP's post is nothing more than a troll post.

2k · April 8, 2008

A toll post? Here? In the Groundspeak forums? Say it ain't so!

April 8, 2008

A toll post? Here? In the Groundspeak forums? Say it ain't so!

How much is the toll gof1?

April 8, 2008

Just a hunch here...you called it Helter Skelter and plan to visit Barker's Ranch...the PTB see a connection between the two and thus see you as promoting Barker's Ranch? I have an idea as I've never been there, but maybe if there's noting there to promote, maybe they see a connection with The Beatles. Commercial guidelines have changed, you're not allowed to promote any business.

"Promoting barker Ranch"?

There is nothing commerical about it, indeed it's just a historical site.

http://www.totalescape.com/active/campstuf...est/barker.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_Ranch

I'm curious what the issue is with the listing though, it seems noone will say.

-Ben

1.1k · April 8, 2008

The really sad thing is that if they had contacted appeals, which is part of my job at Groundspeak, the cache could have been published with a simple change. Instead they waited 2 days after it was past the event date to bring this to the forum. I'm a little confused on that part.

April 8, 2008

The really sad thing is that if they had contacted appeals, which is part of my job at Groundspeak, the cache could have been published with a simple change. Instead they waited 2 days after it was past the event date to bring this to the forum. I'm a little confused on that part.

Hmmm, maybe they were camping?

April 8, 2008

Since it was their first post here and they have choosen not to come back and answer some questions I would not worry about it too much.

14.3k · April 8, 2008

Since it was their first post here and they have choosen not to come back and answer some questions I would not worry about it too much.

It's a group account. It's water under the bridge now.

April 8, 2008

For some unknown reason Krypton deemed our cache to have commercial content. We emailed Kryton to find out why he would not approve the event and to what we had to change to get it approved. We received no response from Krypton.

Marko Ramius, Roadrunner and Nomex all viewed the event page description and did not see any commercial content.

We are upset at the complete breakdown in communication of Krypton and would like an answer to what exactly he assumed was commercial content. We expect accountability.

Krypton's note requested that you contact them through email, yet it appears you responded by posting a note on the cache page (maybe you emailed as well - I can't tell that.)

April 8, 2008

This is an inconsistency in how these things are handled. In the reviewers who have reviewed my caches, some have stated they want contacted by email, some have stated they want to be contacted by reviewer's notes posted on the cache page, some want you to use a specific email address (sometimes the ones in the reviewer's profile, sometimes one posted on the cache page in reviewers notes themselves).

I have seen all of these with the several reviewers who have been or still are in my area.

I understand that posting to the forums, opening this up to the public, is something the reviewers would prefer not to do until after certain steps in the appeals process, which is relatively unclear as well, have been performed.

I also understand that the OP of this issue didn't give the entire story.

But I don't understand why the reviewers just don't get together and decide on one way to contact them that is consistent from reviewer to reviewer, cache to cache. Seems to me it should be pretty simple - pre-approval contacts are handled this way, and post approval (since the cache page is now available to the public) contacts are handled this other way (or the same way, if that is what is decided).

Can we have some consistency here? I know one answer coming will be "Different reviewers want to handle things different ways", but since they all work for GS, can't we have them simply follow one set of directions so it is easier and more convenient for all involved, instead of having to determine how this reviewer wants it handled this time and for this cache and under these circumstances?

22.2k · April 8, 2008

When they start paying us to review caches, and give us Groundspeak e-mail addresses, then we will be glad to all do things the exact same corporate way. Until then, each reviewer is allowed to set up their system in a way that makes it easiest and most fun to volunteer their time.

Now, back to discussing the subject of this thread, which is an event cache that was referred to Groundspeak.

38.2k · April 8, 2008

The really sad thing is that if they had contacted appeals, which is part of my job at Groundspeak, the cache could have been published with a simple change. Instead they waited 2 days after it was past the event date to bring this to the forum. I'm a little confused on that part.

Hmmm, maybe they were camping?

For 2 weeks? Good for them!

Can we have some consistency here? I know one answer coming will be "Different reviewers want to handle things different ways", but since they all work for GS, can't we have them simply follow one set of directions so it is easier and more convenient for all involved, instead of having to determine how this reviewer wants it handled this time and for this cache and under these circumstances?

How about just following the contact instructions provided by the reviewer?

Edited April 8, 2008 by briansnat

2.5k · April 8, 2008

Now, back to discussing the subject of this thread, which is an event cache that was referred to Groundspeak.

For the record, it doesn't look like it ever got to Groundspeak...

The really sad thing is that if they had contacted appeals, which is part of my job at Groundspeak, the cache could have been published with a simple change. Instead they waited 2 days after it was past the event date to bring this to the forum. I'm a little confused on that part.

2k · April 8, 2008

Yup, they were told to contact Groundspeak and failed to do so. Now they want to complain. Sometimes you just have to follow instructions.

April 8, 2008

It is important to note that the OP only posted an excerpt from the submitted cache description. I can see the entire page, with the many lines of text that followed what was captured above. I can see why the reviewer referred the event organizer to Groundspeak. I also see where Groundspeak may quite possibly have said "yes" to the event. It is unfortunate that the organizers chose to disregard the reviewer's request.

What Keystone said.

The part in bold above should probably have read "Below is a very small part of the wording submitted for approval".

We have nothing to hide. Now everyone can see the whole page. How about breaking down the blue wall and explaining your comment "I can see why the reviewer referred the event organizer to Groundspeak."

We could list HUNDREDS of events that took place at pizza places which were approved while being clearly against the commercial content guidlines.

We are still waiting for ANY explanation

This is a reply we got in an email (not from Krypton) on 3-20

I guess there were two issues. One was some commercial content (that I frankly didn't see) and the other was that the cache looked like little more than a big cache hunt. Anyway, it is being looked at by the staff at GC.com...

22.2k · April 8, 2008

Thanks for posting the entire cache page.

Did you write to Groundspeak, as instructed by the reviewer? We refer caches to Groundspeak each and every day. Notice that the reviewer did not say "NO," he said you needed to write to Groundspeak.

April 8, 2008

So what exactly was the problem with this listing?

April 8, 2008

I think theres a song call Another one Bites the Dust. So-Cal , I have heard you hold some awsome events. I hope one day I can attend one of them. Sorry to see this happen. Good Luck on your next one. USA45

Edited April 8, 2008 by USA 45

38.2k · April 8, 2008

So what exactly was the problem with this listing?

We'll never know because the OP never went to Groundspeak for a final ruling.

2.5k · April 8, 2008

So what exactly was the problem with this listing?

Did you read the thread?

The reviewer asked the owner to refer the cache page to Groundspeak. They did not. The cache didn't get listed.

Sounds like it likely would have been listed, too. What a shame.

April 8, 2008

So they didn't even tell them what was wrong? They didn't even specify the complaint? How can you not approve a cache if you don't even have something specific that is wrong with it?

This is even worse than that other thread - at least there, even if not specific, they stated what the issue was. How can we even have a final ruling from Groundspeak when what was wrong with it wasn't even stated?

"I can't approve your cache - i can't tell you why either."

22.2k · April 8, 2008

The reviewer's note is on the cache page image reproduced above. There is no need to guess. The reviewer clearly referred the cache owner to Groundspeak.

1.5k · April 8, 2008

So they didn't even tell them what was wrong? They didn't even specify the complaint? How can you not approve a cache if you don't even have something specific that is wrong with it?

This is even worse than that other thread - at least there, even if not specific, they stated what the issue was. How can we even have a final ruling from Groundspeak when what was wrong with it wasn't even stated?

"I can't approve your cache - i can't tell you why either."

Ummmm, the reviewer asked them to contact Groundspeak related to commercial content on the page.

April 8, 2008

And as stated by several people, also in the thread, there doesn't appear to be any commercial content. Could you please point it out? I'm not stupid, but I agree with the people who posted indicating they don't see any.

1.5k · April 8, 2008

And as stated by several people, also in the thread, there doesn't appear to be any commercial content. Could you please point it out? I'm not stupid, but I agree with the people who posted indicating they don't see any.

My guess would be the link to a commercial site for one of their spots. The one that features ads along with the content they were highlighting.

Would've been a quick "take out this link and it's ok" or "yeah, go ahead with an exception" conversation, I'd think.

April 8, 2008

The really sad thing is that if they had contacted appeals, which is part of my job at Groundspeak, the cache could have been published with a simple change. Instead they waited 2 days after it was past the event date to bring this to the forum. I'm a little confused on that part.

I think they were hoping for a firestorm of protest similar to a few recent threads here in the forums.

Like others here, I think if they would have followed up with Groundspeak, the cache would have been approved very quickly, with little change. Wouldn't that be better than the angst?

2.5k · April 8, 2008

And as stated by several people, also in the thread, there doesn't appear to be any commercial content. Could you please point it out? I'm not stupid, but I agree with the people who posted indicating they don't see any.

Did you read the thread?

You state that several people in the thread have said there doesn't appear to be commercial content. Could you please point it out? I'm not stupid, but I only see you and one other* indicating they don't see any.

Two does not equal several. Especially when one of the opinions being counted was expressed before all the facts were on the table.

* who made their statements before the entire page was listed.

7.2k · April 8, 2008

And as stated by several people, also in the thread, there doesn't appear to be any commercial content. Could you please point it out? I'm not stupid, but I agree with the people who posted indicating they don't see any.

My guess would be the link to a commercial site for one of their spots. The one that features ads along with the content they were highlighting.

Would've been a quick "take out this link and it's ok" or "yeah, go ahead with an exception" conversation, I'd think.

Yes. The www.desertusa.com link is very much a commercial site. They have their own online store and a ton of commercials and links. Pretty easy to see that if you actually follow the link. As Michael pointed out, if they would have contacted the appeals@ email address they probably would have told them to just remove that link and the cache would have been OK. It is too bad they did not send the simple email request, causing the cache to bite the dust.

April 8, 2008

So if the DesertUSA link was the problem why couldn't the REVIEWER just come out and say, "Remove the link to DesertUSA and the event will be approved."

Why involve another level of administration and confuse the matter even worse?

Edited April 8, 2008 by karstic

22.2k · April 8, 2008

Because the Guidelines say that the cache owner needs to write to Groundspeak if they want to include commercial content. Only Groundspeak can approve commercial content. The reviewer was doing his job by making the referral to Groundspeak. I make referrals like this all the time.

April 8, 2008

Why involve another level of administration and confuse the matter even worse?

Why not contact Groundspeak to get this figured out?

Seems the OP had onus settle any possible commercial issues.

Could it be the reviewer made a mistake? Sure. But how would the OP (or anyone) ever know if they never contacted Groundspeak?

6.4k · April 8, 2008

From the info posted, it looks like INSTEAD of contacting Groundspeak like they were instructed, they contacted at least 3 other reviewers.

So if the DesertUSA link was the problem why couldn't the REVIEWER just come out and say, "Remove the link to DesertUSA and the event will be approved."

Why involve another level of administration and confuse the matter even worse?

And getting at least four different reviewers to work on one cache isnt confusing the matter?

April 8, 2008

Yes. The www.desertusa.com link is very much a commercial site. They have their own online store and a ton of commercials and links. Pretty easy to see that if you actually follow the link. As Michael pointed out, if they would have contacted the appeals@ email address they probably would have told them to just remove that link and the cache would have been OK. It is too bad they did not send the simple email request, causing the cache to bite the dust.

Are you serious? We include a link for suggested reading to learn more about the area we plan to visit (one of the most informational desert sites on the net) and because they have a store you deem a whole event cache to have commercial content?

As far as contacting gc.com we were told on March 25

it is being looked at by the staff at GC.com..

We waited for an answer from gc.com that never arrived. We only received our answer from Nomex on April 2 that it was too late to approve the cache.

Cache Event not approved

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation