Jump to content

Cache Event not approved


Recommended Posts

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.

Who told you "it is being looked at by the staff at GC.com.."?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Are you serious?

My guess would be, yes. He was serious. He's a serious guy sometimes.

 

We include a link for and because they have a store you deem a whole event cache to have commercial content?

Again, my guess is "Yes".

Groundspeak has the final say in whether or not including a link to a commercial website constitutes a commercial cache or event page. That's why is was suggested that you contact Groundspeak regarding this matter.

 

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

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

So the question still stands: Did you E-mail Groundspeak as you were directed, or did you just assume that it was being taken care of, and therefore you could ignore the reviewer's advice?

 

It looks like it would've been a fun event. I hope that the next time you set one up similar to this one, you'll either leave out the commercial link or get approval ahead of time from Groundspeak for it to be there.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

Seems to me the simple thing for the reviewer to do would be say:

 

You have a commercial link in your website: (insert link here). If you would like me to publish it, remove the link. If you would like to maintain the link, contact Groundspeak. With the link, I am unable to publish this cache due to current guidelines. See guidelines below: (insert cut and pasted guidelines).

 

The reviewer was deliberately obscure by not including the link, and deliberately delayed the publication by making the OP hunt down information to figure out what the problem was.

 

On several caches I have had published, I have received complete cut and paste replies. I know the reviewers are volunteers, and I know they have a lot of work to do. But instead of taking the time to type a few words, they have picked from a pre-formatted reply to save time and work, and in some of those cases, been confusing. Why is it so hard to simply reply clearly?

 

Clarity (or lack of it) seems to be a common issue here. Again, this commercialization issue has been taken way too far, just like the agenda one.

Link to comment
Seems to me the simple thing for the reviewer to do would be say:

 

You have a commercial link in your website: (insert link here). If you would like me to publish it, remove the link. If you would like to maintain the link, contact Groundspeak. With the link, I am unable to publish this cache due to current guidelines. See guidelines below: (insert cut and pasted guidelines).

 

I think the reason they don't do it that way is they don't want somebody coming to the forum and saying "the reviewer MADE me remove the link".

 

Yes it may be work to get something reviewed, but don't forget it is work to review it as well.

Link to comment

Seems to me the simple thing for the reviewer to do would be say:

 

You have a commercial link in your website: (insert link here). If you would like me to publish it, remove the link. If you would like to maintain the link, contact Groundspeak. With the link, I am unable to publish this cache due to current guidelines. See guidelines below: (insert cut and pasted guidelines).

 

The reviewer was deliberately obscure by not including the link, and deliberately delayed the publication by making the OP hunt down information to figure out what the problem was.

 

On several caches I have had published, I have received complete cut and paste replies. I know the reviewers are volunteers, and I know they have a lot of work to do. But instead of taking the time to type a few words, they have picked from a pre-formatted reply to save time and work, and in some of those cases, been confusing. Why is it so hard to simply reply clearly?

 

Clarity (or lack of it) seems to be a common issue here. Again, this commercialization issue has been taken way too far, just like the agenda one.

 

First, I doubt that the reviewer was deliberately being obscure. They don't go looking for trouble, the job is hard enough as it is.

 

Second, Is it possible that the reviewer may have recommended the link be given an exception and allowed to stay? We will probably never know.

Link to comment

Seems to me the simple thing for the reviewer to do would be say:

 

You have a commercial link in your website: (insert link here). If you would like me to publish it, remove the link. If you would like to maintain the link, contact Groundspeak. With the link, I am unable to publish this cache due to current guidelines. See guidelines below: (insert cut and pasted guidelines).

 

The reviewer was deliberately obscure by not including the link, and deliberately delayed the publication by making the OP hunt down information to figure out what the problem was.

 

On several caches I have had published, I have received complete cut and paste replies. I know the reviewers are volunteers, and I know they have a lot of work to do. But instead of taking the time to type a few words, they have picked from a pre-formatted reply to save time and work, and in some of those cases, been confusing. Why is it so hard to simply reply clearly?

 

Clarity (or lack of it) seems to be a common issue here. Again, this commercialization issue has been taken way too far, just like the agenda one.

 

I will agree that the reviewer probably should have pointed out the area that was tripping up the commercial aspect...and maybe they did and we're not hearing about it.

 

I don't think anyone was trying to be obscure, but in the end, that was the effect.

 

I can see the point of not including a link to another commercial site as part of your event. It may be great information, but you're given them some free advertising and it's understandable that Groundspeak wouldn't want to promote that on the pages they host.

Link to comment

Seems to me the simple thing for the reviewer to do would be say:

 

You have a commercial link in your website: (insert link here). If you would like me to publish it, remove the link. If you would like to maintain the link, contact Groundspeak. With the link, I am unable to publish this cache due to current guidelines. See guidelines below: (insert cut and pasted guidelines).

 

The reviewer was deliberately obscure by not including the link, and deliberately delayed the publication by making the OP hunt down information to figure out what the problem was.

 

On several caches I have had published, I have received complete cut and paste replies. I know the reviewers are volunteers, and I know they have a lot of work to do. But instead of taking the time to type a few words, they have picked from a pre-formatted reply to save time and work, and in some of those cases, been confusing. Why is it so hard to simply reply clearly?

 

Clarity (or lack of it) seems to be a common issue here. Again, this commercialization issue has been taken way too far, just like the agenda one.

I too doubt that the reviewer was being deliberately obscure, at least that wouldn't be my first, second or third assumption.

But I do agree that giving event/cache owners the information and options would be nice - in all such instances, not just this one. In the end, it would be Groundspeak denying the cache if they appealed and lost, not the reviewer. The reviewer either approves when the offending content is removed or abstains and Groundspeak makes the appeal call.

In this particular instance, seems the event organizer wasted time contacting the wrong people instead of just following the advice of the reviewer. I wonder what they would have done if given the choice as described above? Oh well, live and learn.

Link to comment

Seems to me the simple thing for the reviewer to do would be say:

 

You have a commercial link in your website: (insert link here). If you would like me to publish it, remove the link. If you would like to maintain the link, contact Groundspeak. With the link, I am unable to publish this cache due to current guidelines. See guidelines below: (insert cut and pasted guidelines).

This substitutes my judgement for Groundspeak's. While I am fully empowered to, for example, make an exception by listing a cache 515 feet away from another one, it is different for commercial content. Because so much commercial content was finding its way onto cache pages, Groundspeak now asks the reviewers NOT to make this judgement, but instead to just refer the cache to Groundspeak. If I handle it myself, I run the risk of arriving at a different conclusion than that which Groundspeak might have reached.

 

The reviewer was deliberately obscure by not including the link, and deliberately delayed the publication by making the OP hunt down information to figure out what the problem was.

 

What evidence of "deliberate" intent do you have? He used a form letter. I have one also. Form letters aid in consistency, and in remembering to provide all necessary information. Here, the only information needed was "write to appeals@geocaching.com." Instead the event organizer appears to have contacted a bunch of other reviewers -- that is not the process. The organizer also left notes on the cache page. I have a form letter for that, too:

 

Hello,

 

I am sorry if my prior note was unclear. Groundspeak will not know about the note that you wrote. You need to send them an e-mail. Only Groundspeak can make a decision whether or not your cache is acceptable under the Commercial Cache guideline. I encourage you to write to them for guidance as soon as possible. You should only leave a note for me on the cache page once you've heard back from Groundspeak.

 

Regards,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

When Groundspeak starts paying me, I will be happy to spend 40 hours per week on this job instead of 20, so that I can take the time to customize the form letters more to your liking. For now, however, it's a volunteer job.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

Seems to me the simple thing for the reviewer to do would be say:

 

You have a commercial link in your website: (insert link here). If you would like me to publish it, remove the link. If you would like to maintain the link, contact Groundspeak. With the link, I am unable to publish this cache due to current guidelines. See guidelines below: (insert cut and pasted guidelines).

 

The reviewer was deliberately obscure by not including the link, and deliberately delayed the publication by making the OP hunt down information to figure out what the problem was.

 

On several caches I have had published, I have received complete cut and paste replies. I know the reviewers are volunteers, and I know they have a lot of work to do. But instead of taking the time to type a few words, they have picked from a pre-formatted reply to save time and work, and in some of those cases, been confusing. Why is it so hard to simply reply clearly?

 

Clarity (or lack of it) seems to be a common issue here. Again, this commercialization issue has been taken way too far, just like the agenda one.

 

You sure do throw out a lot of accusations, these are disappointing! I wish you'd stop being so negative and deal with FACTS instead of conspiracy theories!

 

FACT: Commercial content was included.

 

FACT: They were instructed to contact GS.

 

after that, you're simply guessing.

 

And YES SoCal...that's commercial! Guess what, if you'd have simplly put a LINK in to send people to a PRIVATE website for the event, you could have included tht info on the info page. It's how things are done these days!!

 

Why were you trying to set up an event two weeks before the event anyway? And, unless the date was super special, couldn't ANY date be used? Set up an event info page, re-write the event page and GIDDY-UP!!

Link to comment

If the reviewer didn't explain to them what the contention with the content was then that is unfortunate. I don't think a reviewer should default someone to GS without them having a chance to correct things without GS involvement. Maybe that happened, maybe it didn't, but there is too much clutter on the subject...so I am making a qualified, generic statement.

 

However, it should be relatively common sense that any direct link to a website, especially one that sells something, is going to be viewed as a violation of the solicitation rule.

Edited by egami
Link to comment

Seems to me the simple thing for the reviewer to do would be say:

 

You have a commercial link in your website: (insert link here). If you would like me to publish it, remove the link. If you would like to maintain the link, contact Groundspeak. With the link, I am unable to publish this cache due to current guidelines. See guidelines below: (insert cut and pasted guidelines).

This substitutes my judgement for Groundspeak's. While I am fully empowered to, for example, make an exception by listing a cache 515 feet away from another one, it is different for commercial content. Because so much commercial content was finding its way onto cache pages, Groundspeak now asks the reviewers NOT to make this judgement, but instead to just refer the cache to Groundspeak. If I handle it myself, I run the risk of arriving at a different conclusion than that which Groundspeak might have reached.

 

The reviewer was deliberately obscure by not including the link, and deliberately delayed the publication by making the OP hunt down information to figure out what the problem was.

 

What evidence of "deliberate" intent do you have? He used a form letter. I have one also. Form letters aid in consistency, and in remembering to provide all necessary information. Here, the only information needed was "write to appeals@geocaching.com." Instead the event organizer appears to have contacted a bunch of other reviewers -- that is not the process. The organizer also left notes on the cache page. I have a form letter for that, too:

 

Hello,

 

I am sorry if my prior note was unclear. Groundspeak will not know about the note that you wrote. You need to send them an e-mail. Only Groundspeak can make a decision whether or not your cache is acceptable under the Commercial Cache guideline. I encourage you to write to them for guidance as soon as possible. You should only leave a note for me on the cache page once you've heard back from Groundspeak.

 

Regards,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

When Groundspeak starts paying me, I will be happy to spend 40 hours per week on this job instead of 20, so that I can take the time to customize the form letters more to your liking. For now, however, it's a volunteer job.

 

The evidence of being deliberate was the fact that the reviewer clearly knew what the "commercial" issue was, but didn't simply state that in their letter. "The link (insert link here) is a commercial site and is in violation of the guideline". Instead, they left the person to wonder what the specific issue was with the commercial cache guideline, as they had several links on their page.

 

I have never agreed with form letters. If you have something to say, please take the time to say it to me, rather than cut and paste a form letter together. I appreciate the attempt at consistency. I just feel that there needs to be a little more explanation given on this one. Besides, you mentioned in a previous post that you didn't feel a need for consistency in contacting reviewers from one to another because of a lack of pay and company email addresses.

 

As a volunteer fireman, I give whatever time is required to get the job done. And I don't think that if I showed up and started reading from a script when someone needed help, they would like that very much. I deal with each situation according to my training (in your case, the guidelines and reviewer directions you receive). A form letter is a good start, but specifying what the issue is makes more sense.

 

Complaining about wanting pay, or limiting the number of hours because of not being paid, really doesn't fit with what is being discussed here. I would love to get paid as a volunteer fireman, but don't see that happening - so I continue to do what I need to to ensure the safety and welfare of the people I have chosen to protect. The reviewers have chosen to volunteer their time for this. (and we thank you for that) They take a lot of flack for trying to uphold confusing guidelines (Hmm - I seem to be responsible for some of this). Its a tough job. I will not argue that point. But they can make it a lot easier on the people who are submitting caches by simply being a little more clear.

 

Obviously, I don't have the backing on this issue that I had with the one which was closed, and the moderators don't seem to want to have to deal with that issue anymore, so I'll drop out of this one.

Link to comment

Six months or so ago, I placed a cache at a local landmark (that happens to be a toy store) and I ran into the exact issues discussed in this topic. The reviewer I was involved with was Keystone. I can vouch for his form letter because I saw both the one he quoted in his post and the one the california reviewer used. I remember at the time being pretty pissed off when he immediately told me to contact appeals and seek approval there. I sent him a few emails basically stating that I didn't want to deal with appeals, I had dealt with him many times in the past and wanted to deal with him. I asked him to specifically state what needed changed and I would change it. He hit me with the second form letter, LOL. I did end up pushing it through appeals and they approved it with changes. Honestly, if I hadn't spent so much time dealing with the business owners to get permission to place the cache I probably wouldn't have bothered.

 

 

After a few weeks went by and the aggravation faded, I put myself into Keystone's shoes and what he did made sense. Being a reviewer is certainly a thankless job at times I imagine and I'm glad I didn't let too much of my anger permeate the emails I sent back and forth with Keystone. It's easy to expect personal attention (like customized form letters and/or having a reviewer take the time to go through your listing line by line and detail the issues) but when you consider the fact that the average reviewer is publishing hundreds of caches a day...it would be a full time job with overtime to do such a thing. Hindsight is always 20/20...and my hindsight on this particular dealing with Keystone was that he handled it well. Kudos to keystone!

 

 

How about we change this thread from a reviewer bash to a reviewer thanking?

Link to comment

I'm surprised that the event didn't get denied for violating this bit of the guidelines:

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches.

 

Never seen that before...meaning already existing caches?

Link to comment

I'm surprised that the event didn't get denied for violating this bit of the guidelines:

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches.

 

We have the same issue with GC13MQ3 then - it was archived since it is long gone, but that guideline has been around for a while. Just throwing food in there, the main purpose of this was to hunt one specific cache at that site. Why was it approved?

 

Oh wait... no precidents, right? Sheesh....

Link to comment

The evidence of being deliberate was the fact that the reviewer clearly knew what the "commercial" issue was, but didn't simply state that in their letter.

 

That hardly makes it deliberate. That is a huge leap of faith to make such an offensive statement when you were not involved in the review or emails that may or may not have been sent. You can disagree with how much information should have been provided, but to suggest any sort of deliberate conspiracy to prevent listing the event is ridiculous.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the commercial content, or at least see what could possibly be viewed as commercial content.

 

As a volunteer fireman, I give whatever time is required to get the job done. And I don't think that if I showed up and started reading from a script when someone needed help, they would like that very much. I deal with each situation according to my training (in your case, the guidelines and reviewer directions you receive). A form letter is a good start, but specifying what the issue is makes more sense.

 

First off, thank you for volunteering to serve your community. That is so much more important than anything we do as cache reviewers. But to compare what you do with what we do doesn't give yourself the credit you deserve. We're just playing a game here. If something goes wrong, oh well. Nobody gets hurt.

Link to comment

Six months or so ago, I placed a cache at a local landmark (that happens to be a toy store) and I ran into the exact issues discussed in this topic. The reviewer I was involved with was Keystone. I can vouch for his form letter because I saw both the one he quoted in his post and the one the california reviewer used. I remember at the time being pretty pissed off when he immediately told me to contact appeals and seek approval there. I sent him a few emails basically stating that I didn't want to deal with appeals, I had dealt with him many times in the past and wanted to deal with him. I asked him to specifically state what needed changed and I would change it. He hit me with the second form letter, LOL. I did end up pushing it through appeals and they approved it with changes. Honestly, if I hadn't spent so much time dealing with the business owners to get permission to place the cache I probably wouldn't have bothered.

 

 

After a few weeks went by and the aggravation faded, I put myself into Keystone's shoes and what he did made sense. Being a reviewer is certainly a thankless job at times I imagine and I'm glad I didn't let too much of my anger permeate the emails I sent back and forth with Keystone. It's easy to expect personal attention (like customized form letters and/or having a reviewer take the time to go through your listing line by line and detail the issues) but when you consider the fact that the average reviewer is publishing hundreds of caches a day...it would be a full time job with overtime to do such a thing. Hindsight is always 20/20...and my hindsight on this particular dealing with Keystone was that he handled it well. Kudos to keystone!

 

 

How about we change this thread from a reviewer bash to a reviewer thanking?

 

Why would it have been so difficult to simply state "Here's where the problem is. You can a) Remove the link or :P take the issue up with the appeals process. Otherwise, I am unable to publish your cache." - Why is that so hard to do?

 

I appreciate their efforts. Just because they are volunteer, doesn't mean they can't improve the system sometimes. There's always better ways to do things - maybe more work, maybe less. I thought the goal was to improve the game - that's all.

Link to comment

Seems to me the simple thing for the reviewer to do would be say:

 

You have a commercial link in your website: (insert link here). If you would like me to publish it, remove the link. If you would like to maintain the link, contact Groundspeak. With the link, I am unable to publish this cache due to current guidelines. See guidelines below: (insert cut and pasted guidelines).

This substitutes my judgement for Groundspeak's. While I am fully empowered to, for example, make an exception by listing a cache 515 feet away from another one, it is different for commercial content. Because so much commercial content was finding its way onto cache pages, Groundspeak now asks the reviewers NOT to make this judgement, but instead to just refer the cache to Groundspeak. If I handle it myself, I run the risk of arriving at a different conclusion than that which Groundspeak might have reached.

 

The reviewer was deliberately obscure by not including the link, and deliberately delayed the publication by making the OP hunt down information to figure out what the problem was.

 

What evidence of "deliberate" intent do you have? He used a form letter. I have one also. Form letters aid in consistency, and in remembering to provide all necessary information. Here, the only information needed was "write to appeals@geocaching.com." Instead the event organizer appears to have contacted a bunch of other reviewers -- that is not the process. The organizer also left notes on the cache page. I have a form letter for that, too:

 

Hello,

 

I am sorry if my prior note was unclear. Groundspeak will not know about the note that you wrote. You need to send them an e-mail. Only Groundspeak can make a decision whether or not your cache is acceptable under the Commercial Cache guideline. I encourage you to write to them for guidance as soon as possible. You should only leave a note for me on the cache page once you've heard back from Groundspeak.

 

Regards,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

When Groundspeak starts paying me, I will be happy to spend 40 hours per week on this job instead of 20, so that I can take the time to customize the form letters more to your liking. For now, however, it's a volunteer job.

 

The evidence of being deliberate was the fact that the reviewer clearly knew what the "commercial" issue was, but didn't simply state that in their letter. "The link (insert link here) is a commercial site and is in violation of the guideline". Instead, they left the person to wonder what the specific issue was with the commercial cache guideline, as they had several links on their page.

 

I have never agreed with form letters. If you have something to say, please take the time to say it to me, rather than cut and paste a form letter together. I appreciate the attempt at consistency. I just feel that there needs to be a little more explanation given on this one. Besides, you mentioned in a previous post that you didn't feel a need for consistency in contacting reviewers from one to another because of a lack of pay and company email addresses.

 

As a volunteer fireman, I give whatever time is required to get the job done. And I don't think that if I showed up and started reading from a script when someone needed help, they would like that very much. I deal with each situation according to my training (in your case, the guidelines and reviewer directions you receive). A form letter is a good start, but specifying what the issue is makes more sense.

 

Complaining about wanting pay, or limiting the number of hours because of not being paid, really doesn't fit with what is being discussed here. I would love to get paid as a volunteer fireman, but don't see that happening - so I continue to do what I need to to ensure the safety and welfare of the people I have chosen to protect. The reviewers have chosen to volunteer their time for this. (and we thank you for that) They take a lot of flack for trying to uphold confusing guidelines (Hmm - I seem to be responsible for some of this). Its a tough job. I will not argue that point. But they can make it a lot easier on the people who are submitting caches by simply being a little more clear.

 

Obviously, I don't have the backing on this issue that I had with the one which was closed, and the moderators don't seem to want to have to deal with that issue anymore, so I'll drop out of this one.

 

THANK-YOU!! Also...not sure why you'd feel you need backing IF you thought you were right?? :P

 

Here's a thought: you blame the reviewer for being too vague with their response. How about if the OP had READ the listing guidelines and understood that the link wouldn't be allowed? I mean, they intentionally left out that part when posting what they submitted for review...maybe because they KNEW what the problem was? (just a guess here, but I do wonder why they left out the important info)

 

ANYONE who's tried to publish an event or cache since the guidelines change can tell you what will and will not be allowed...it's not that hard to understand! NO links to commercial sites alllowed on the page, no mentioning the name of the venue more than once (if commercial in nature), no hotel, no restaurant etc etc. This is mentioned in the guidelines...black and white! Maybe the blame should go to those who either don't follow the guidelines or don't read them!

 

What I find completely comical is how you RAILED against the flexibility of reviewers in the last thread, now you want the reviewers to BE flexible?? OK...which is it?? :D

Link to comment
The evidence of being deliberate was the fact that the reviewer clearly knew what the "commercial" issue was, but didn't simply state that in their letter. "The link (insert link here) is a commercial site and is in violation of the guideline". Instead, they left the person to wonder what the specific issue was with the commercial cache guideline, as they had several links on their page.

 

I have never agreed with form letters. If you have something to say, please take the time to say it to me, rather than cut and paste a form letter together. I appreciate the attempt at consistency. I just feel that there needs to be a little more explanation given on this one. Besides, you mentioned in a previous post that you didn't feel a need for consistency in contacting reviewers from one to another because of a lack of pay and company email addresses.

If they didn't use form letters, they wouldn't be able to quickly get through thier queue of caches to be listed. That would result in numerous 'why does it take so long to get listed' threads. Something tells me that you would be among those who piled on in those threads.

As a volunteer fireman, I give whatever time is required to get the job done. And I don't think that if I showed up and started reading from a script when someone needed help, they would like that very much. I deal with each situation according to my training (in your case, the guidelines and reviewer directions you receive). A form letter is a good start, but specifying what the issue is makes more sense.

So you are comparing fighting a fire with listing caches for a game. Really? Surely, you can see that the comparison doesn't work.

Complaining about wanting pay, or limiting the number of hours because of not being paid, really doesn't fit with what is being discussed here. I would love to get paid as a volunteer fireman, but don't see that happening - so I continue to do what I need to to ensure the safety and welfare of the people I have chosen to protect. The reviewers have chosen to volunteer their time for this. (and we thank you for that) They take a lot of flack for trying to uphold confusing guidelines (Hmm - I seem to be responsible for some of this). Its a tough job. I will not argue that point. But they can make it a lot easier on the people who are submitting caches by simply being a little more clear.

As you stated, they have chosen to volunteer their time. They haven't agreed to volunteer ALL of their time. They have lives. They hold jobs (since they are not paid by TPTB), they sleep, they eat, they spend time with their families, and they even geocache. On top of all that, they review caches for us. Personally, I wouldn't be able/willing to put in the amount of time that they do. I'm not going to ask them to give more.

Obviously, I don't have the backing on this issue that I had with the one which was closed, and the moderators don't seem to want to have to deal with that issue anymore, so I'll drop out of this one.

Link to comment

First off, thank you for volunteering to serve your community. That is so much more important than anything we do as cache reviewers. But to compare what you do with what we do doesn't give yourself the credit you deserve. We're just playing a game here. If something goes wrong, oh well. Nobody gets hurt.

 

That's the same argument that some volunteer firemen use. "We're only volunteers, so we don't have to do it right"

 

And yes, people get hurt. They lose interest in publishing caches because of all the hoops you have to jump through to do it sometimes. They lose interest in publishing caches because of all of the hassles you have to go through to get one published sometimes. And this loss of interest hurts the game by not making as many caches available to people who want to hunt them.

 

Also, if you don't do your job well, the game gets hurt - if a cache is published which causes a problem in the community, the game gets a black eye.

 

No, no one is likely to suffer physical injury. But anything you choose to volunteer for, I would hope that you would give your best effort - not just say "Well, it's only a game."

Link to comment

I'm surprised that the event didn't get denied for violating this bit of the guidelines:

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches.

Ding ding ding! Another guidelines issue.

 

Had the event been submitted in the misleading edited format offered in the initial post, without the cache route and commercial link, I would have listed it in a heartbeat. I am sure the California reviewers would have done the same.

Link to comment
Why would it have been so difficult to simply state "Here's where the problem is. You can a) Remove the link or B ) take the issue up with the appeals process. Otherwise, I am unable to publish your cache." - Why is that so hard to do?

Keystone already explained it here and in a response to your own question, he answered it here as well (it's a good idea to read the entire thread before responding) :P We're not supposed to make the judgment about whether something should be allowed or not, that's up to Groundspeak. If it's a commercial issue, we have them contact appeals.

 

The guidelines also address it by stating:

 

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

 

Why should we have people remove links if there's a chance Groundspeak will allow it?

Link to comment

 

What I find completely comical is how you RAILED against the flexibility of reviewers in the last thread, now you want the reviewers to BE flexible?? OK...which is it?? :P

 

I don't want them to be flexible here - I want them to be CLEAR. That is all.

Link to comment
Why would it have been so difficult to simply state "Here's where the problem is. You can a) Remove the link or B ) take the issue up with the appeals process. Otherwise, I am unable to publish your cache." - Why is that so hard to do?

Keystone already explained it here and in a response to your own question, he answered it here as well (it's a good idea to read the entire thread before responding) :P We're not supposed to make the judgment about whether something should be allowed or not, that's up to Groundspeak. If it's a commercial issue, we have them contact appeals.

 

The guidelines also address it by stating:

 

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

 

Why should we have people remove links if there's a chance Groundspeak will allow it?

 

Why should you not give them a clear statement of what the problem is, so they can choose whether to change it themselves, or pursue the appeal? Why should you not give them the choice?

 

Or you can just hand it off to GS, where it takes longer for them to look into it because if the reviewers are checking hundreds of caches a day, GS must be checking 10s of thousands.

 

And you already have made that judgement that you say you're not able to. You've judged that you can't publish it as it is currently made.

Edited by FireRef
Link to comment
Could it be the reviewer made a mistake? Sure.
I'm sorry, but no. The guidelines are clear about commercial content. The reviewer suggested to the cache owner the course of action stated in the guidelines. The cache owner did not follow that action step. That is not a reviewer mistake.

But how would the OP (or anyone) ever know if they never contacted Groundspeak?

Michael posted early in this topic. He said that they never contacted the appeals address as directed by the reviewer. That's not the reviewers fault.

 

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?

Yes. We cannot just list part of a cache page. If there is commercial content, it goes without saying that the entire page is not going to be listed. I've been yelled at by cachers before for altering their page. We don't do that anymore. It is your page. You have to fix it. The reviewer in question followed the guidelines. Don't try to shift blame to them. If you had read them completely and checked out all of the pages you link completely, there would be no issue here. I am sorry, but blaming the reviewer for a mistake that you made, even a small one, is not right. They did their job.

 

If it were me, when the "two weeks before the event" time period came, I would have been writing to Groundspeak, the contact@ address, the appeals@ address and would have been posting forum topics to get my event listed. You have to be proactive. The evidence you have presented shows you just waiting around. Waiting until two days after the event to get worked up about it isn't the reviewer's fault.

 

In addition, if you really want to do the event, you now know what to do to fix it. Pick a new date, write to the appeals@ email address as directed, see what they say about the page, make the changes and get the event listed. It does look interesting, though visiting the Manson Ranch is something I personally would not do.

 

sbell111, the cache page would be OK. Though there isn't much about it, the main part of the event is the campfire event at 8PM Saturday night. That is what you have to attend to get the smiley for the event. The other stuff about the cache runs just shows what they will be doing for the rest of the weekend and if you want to join them, you can. It is not required for the event though. It looks like if you wanted to just come out and swap some stories over a camp fire, you can do that to attend the event. That's OK and sounds like fun. With some tweaking, I am sure some of that could have stayed.

 

And FireRef, I see you found another "bash Groundspeak" topic. It is time for you to drop out of this one, so I am glad you have made that choice at this point. (Edited to add that I see you posted six more times after I started writing this reply and after you said you were going to drop out of the topic. Not out of the topic after all are you.)

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment
I don't want them to be flexible here - I want them to be CLEAR. That is all.
The guidelines are already pretty clear on this issue. The reviewers should not have to hold everyone's hand through the process. If the the person submitting the event actually read the guidelines that they agreed to, they would already have a clue what the problem is. In fact, the form letter gave them enough of a clue that they could have simply reread the part of the guidelines regarding commercial content and they could have figured it out. Alternatively, they could simply go through the appeals process, as suggested by the reviewer. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Why should you not give them a clear statement of what the problem is, so they can choose whether to change it themselves, or pursue the appeal? Why should you not give them the choice?

 

Or you can just hand it off to GS, where it takes longer for them to look into it because if the reviewers are checking hundreds of caches a day, GS must be checking 10s of thousands.

Yours is a classic case of "listening with your answer running". You read the posts, but you already have a rebuttal ready to go, so you don't really listen. Your question has been answered multiple times, yet you fail to grasp the concept of what's being explained to you.

 

If you think the guidelines need changing, email Groundspeak with your suggestion or start a new thread in the Website forum.

Link to comment
Why would it have been so difficult to simply state "Here's where the problem is. You can a) Remove the link or :P take the issue up with the appeals process. Otherwise, I am unable to publish your cache." - Why is that so hard to do?

 

I appreciate their efforts. Just because they are volunteer, doesn't mean they can't improve the system sometimes. There's always better ways to do things - maybe more work, maybe less. I thought the goal was to improve the game - that's all.

 

 

Well, you see, it's never that simple. If he had responded and said "xxx is commercial. yyy is commercial. picture zzz has to go. etc", I probably would've responded by arguing my side of each item and why I think it is OK. I bet a majority of hiders would do the same thing. He could've easily spent 10-15 minutes or more typing back and forth with me before I got the point. Multiply this by dozens of problem cache pages and suddenly the time required is extreme enough that it interferes with real life. When time becomes an issue I would imagine either the approval time of caches goes up dramatically or reviewers start quitting. I think I'll take the current situation where caches are approved in minutes to hours and deal with the occasional appeals request.

Link to comment

Six months or so ago, I placed a cache at a local landmark (that happens to be a toy store) and I ran into the exact issues discussed in this topic. The reviewer I was involved with was Keystone. I can vouch for his form letter because I saw both the one he quoted in his post and the one the california reviewer used. I remember at the time being pretty pissed off when he immediately told me to contact appeals and seek approval there. I sent him a few emails basically stating that I didn't want to deal with appeals, I had dealt with him many times in the past and wanted to deal with him. I asked him to specifically state what needed changed and I would change it. He hit me with the second form letter, LOL. I did end up pushing it through appeals and they approved it with changes.

Thank you for this excellent real-world example. I take it as a compliment when good folks like you would rather deal with me than with a somewhat faceless "Groundspeak." And I fully understand when people get upset about their caches being questioned, as we put so much effort into creating them. Form letters also help me from letting emotions creep into my professional correspondence.

 

There are many others like you, who keep insisting that they'd rather deal with me than write to the appeals address. For them, I now have a secret weapon: the THIRD form letter. It goes like this:

 

The commercial cache discussion needs to take place with Groundspeak, not with me. Please write to Groundspeak as explained in my prior note. Your inquiry will be handled promptly and courteously by one of two Groundspeak representatives who began their illustrious careers as volunteer cache reviewers, prior to becoming employees. So, they are fully versed in the cache review process and dealing with good cache owners like yourselves. Also, they are obviously much smarter than I am, since I am still happily doing my review work for free. Wouldn't you rather have a *smart* person evaluate your cache?

 

Let me know when you've heard back from Groundspeak. Thanks for your patience and cooperation in this regard.

 

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

:P

Link to comment

Well, you see, it's never that simple. If he had responded and said "xxx is commercial. yyy is commercial. picture zzz has to go. etc", I probably would've responded by arguing my side of each item and why I think it is OK. I bet a majority of hiders would do the same thing. He could've easily spent 10-15 minutes or more typing back and forth with me before I got the point. Multiply this by dozens of problem cache pages and suddenly the time required is extreme enough that it interferes with real life. When time becomes an issue I would imagine either the approval time of caches goes up dramatically or reviewers start quitting. I think I'll take the current situation where caches are approved in minutes to hours and deal with the occasional appeals request.

 

If its that big of a deal, maybe they need to get more reviewers. As I understand it, there are a number of people who would like to do it, but GS is so picky they only invite a select few. Maybe they need to invite more so they don't have reviewers talking about how much work it is.

Link to comment

Well, you see, it's never that simple. If he had responded and said "xxx is commercial. yyy is commercial. picture zzz has to go. etc", I probably would've responded by arguing my side of each item and why I think it is OK. I bet a majority of hiders would do the same thing. He could've easily spent 10-15 minutes or more typing back and forth with me before I got the point. Multiply this by dozens of problem cache pages and suddenly the time required is extreme enough that it interferes with real life. When time becomes an issue I would imagine either the approval time of caches goes up dramatically or reviewers start quitting. I think I'll take the current situation where caches are approved in minutes to hours and deal with the occasional appeals request.

 

If its that big of a deal, maybe they need to get more reviewers. As I understand it, there are a number of people who would like to do it, but GS is so picky they only invite a select few. Maybe they need to invite more so they don't have reviewers talking about how much work it is.

 

FireRef, please give it a rest. You said you were out of the thread, so why are you still in it, attacking the reviewers? They're doing their job volunteer work. Are you going to jump on every thead and twist it to yor own agenda (oh, that word!), because you are still upset over that one thread?

 

The reviewers are doing a great job. No, they're not perfect. But they are doing what they're supposed to do here. Enough said. Please.

Link to comment
If its that big of a deal, maybe they need to get more reviewers. As I understand it, there are a number of people who would like to do it, but GS is so picky they only invite a select few. Maybe they need to invite more so they don't have reviewers talking about how much work it is.
The 'get more reviewers' solution doesn't work forever. Eventually, you add so many people that the span of control becomes too wide and quality suffers.
Link to comment
Why would it have been so difficult to simply state "Here's where the problem is. You can a) Remove the link or :P take the issue up with the appeals process. Otherwise, I am unable to publish your cache." - Why is that so hard to do?

 

I appreciate their efforts. Just because they are volunteer, doesn't mean they can't improve the system sometimes. There's always better ways to do things - maybe more work, maybe less. I thought the goal was to improve the game - that's all.

 

Well, you see, it's never that simple. If he had responded and said "xxx is commercial. yyy is commercial. picture zzz has to go. etc", I probably would've responded by arguing my side of each item and why I think it is OK. I bet a majority of hiders would do the same thing. He could've easily spent 10-15 minutes or more typing back and forth with me before I got the point. Multiply this by dozens of problem cache pages and suddenly the time required is extreme enough that it interferes with real life. When time becomes an issue I would imagine either the approval time of caches goes up dramatically or reviewers start quitting. I think I'll take the current situation where caches are approved in minutes to hours and deal with the occasional appeals request.

 

I dunno...seems a form letter that said something to the effect of

"You have some commercial links on your cache page which makes it impossible to list this cache without feedback from Groundspeak in relation to the commercial guidelines <paste appropriate guideline section>

 

They've asked all of the reviewers to not make judgment calls on these types of items, so you'll need to contact appeals@geocaching.com to have them determine if your cache is within the guidelines or if it's not, if they'll grant an exception.

 

Reviewers aren't allowed to make the final determination on commercial guidelines, so please contact Groundspeak with further questions"

 

I completely understand reviewers not wanting to be in the middle of it and following the procedures outlined by TPTB. It just seems silly to not pass on a couple of extra tidbits to the hiders and save Keystone getting several emails about why they want HIM to grant the exception this time.

Link to comment
Obviously, I don't have the backing on this issue that I had with the one which was closed, and the moderators don't seem to want to have to deal with that issue anymore, so I'll drop out of this one.

Since he has decided not to participate in the thread any longer, let's avoid directing posts at him.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment

The organizer also left notes on the cache page. I have a form letter for that, too:

 

Hello,

 

I am sorry if my prior note was unclear. Groundspeak will not know about the note that you wrote. You need to send them an e-mail. Only Groundspeak can make a decision whether or not your cache is acceptable under the Commercial Cache guideline. I encourage you to write to them for guidance as soon as possible. You should only leave a note for me on the cache page once you've heard back from Groundspeak.

 

Regards,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

 

Why did Krypton not answer either of the emails we sent him or at the very least communicate with a note like the one you posted above to the cache page?

 

In the future we will only add the barest of information to event cache pages. Sad really. Less effort gets rewarded. Maybe we should just hold flash events. Please drive many miles and join us in camp for 15 minutes and then please leave.

Link to comment

The organizer also left notes on the cache page. I have a form letter for that, too:

 

Hello,

 

I am sorry if my prior note was unclear. Groundspeak will not know about the note that you wrote. You need to send them an e-mail. Only Groundspeak can make a decision whether or not your cache is acceptable under the Commercial Cache guideline. I encourage you to write to them for guidance as soon as possible. You should only leave a note for me on the cache page once you've heard back from Groundspeak.

 

Regards,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

 

Why did Krypton not answer either of the emails we sent him or at the very least communicate with a note like the one you posted above to the cache page?

 

In the future we will only add the barest of information to event cache pages. Sad really. Less effort gets rewarded. Maybe we should just hold flash events. Please drive many miles and join us in camp for 15 minutes and then please leave.

 

On the contrary, more work now has to go into the description...if you want it to include all you wish! It's so simple....even a...lol Provide the bare-bones info on the event page WITH a link at the bottom which takes you to the EVENT INFO PAGE!! The event info page can have all the links to books, hotels, restaurants etc etc you need or want (to a point of course). The event page should simply be the time, lace, date, and other bare requirements needed to get your event to the people...be artistic and do as little or as much as you wish with the info page!!

 

I know I'm pretty proud of MY event info page!! Check it out here! http://home.comcast.net/~roddyville65/

 

First time I ever set up a website, pretty proud of what I could do!!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

I'm surprised that the event didn't get denied for violating this bit of the guidelines:

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches.

Ding ding ding! Another guidelines issue.

 

....

That was my initial reaction when I read the OP. Was surprised when that wasn't the issue.

Link to comment

I'm a little bit reluctant to respond to this thread because I'm pretty sure that the next time I see FishPOET he will want to come wipe the frog poop off of my nose. I'm a bit surprised that this even happened. The SoCal4x4Geocachers usually take great care in writing up their events to meet the guidelines. While the main purpose of their weekend is to go riding through the desert in their 4x4s, the events are always listed as a get together at the campground or at a restaurant in the morning before heading out and is open to any one who wants to attend. I don't even think the event part has even ever been held where you would need other that a standard 2 wheel drive passenger car to get to. In the past I can't recall if they have listed the other caches they would be going that weekend. I seem to recall that someone would put together a public bookmark list and that included the event so you could download the coordinates.

 

They may have been unaware of the interpretation that a simple link on the cache page could even be viewed as commercial content. This is a great example of guidelines creep. Originally, the commercial guideline applied to caches that were openly soliciting business. For example you could write - This cache is at my favorite falafel stand. But you couldn't say - This cache is at my favorite falafel stand. Say hello to the owner Amir and try the delicious shawarma. Events had more leeway. You could have a link to the restaurant website or if you had sponsors who donated stuff for a raffle you could thank them. Somewhere along the way, people likely abused this by turning their event pages into banner ads for their sponsors or for the location where the event was held. Instead of a sane response such a limiting the use of graphics or saying that you could only have a limited number of clickable URLs to get additional information, the decision was made to consider any link to a commercial site as a potential guideline violation and to require the event organizers to get Groundspeak's permission. I became aware of this change in a recent thread about an event in Canada that wouldn't be list because there was a clickable link to the restaurant's website so that people could see the menu when deciding whether to attend the event. To me, not allowing a link to the restaurant where the event is being held is a bit overboard. The reviewers who posted in that thread made the argument that potential event attendees could look up the restaurant site and find the menu themselves. Sure they could, but I would consider it a courtesy of the event organizer to tell me where I can find more information that would help me decide if I wanted to attend the event. The link to desertusa.com is used by Socal4x4Geocachers a lot on their own website as it has a lot of good information on 4x4 trails in the southwestern deserts. I wonder if they may have used this on some of their previous events or caches. They may have been surprised that this is now all of a sudden consider commercial. It also points out that guidelines are not always applied consistently. A different reviewer may have simply chosen to overlook that link or may have decided that ads on desertusa.com were as reasonable as the ads that Groundspeak choose to run on geocaching.com There are very few websites today that don't have some kind of advertising.

 

Why should you not give them a clear statement of what the problem is, so they can choose whether to change it themselves, or pursue the appeal? Why should you not give them the choice?

 

Or you can just hand it off to GS, where it takes longer for them to look into it because if the reviewers are checking hundreds of caches a day, GS must be checking 10s of thousands.

Yours is a classic case of "listening with your answer running". You read the posts, but you already have a rebuttal ready to go, so you don't really listen. Your question has been answered multiple times, yet you fail to grasp the concept of what's being explained to you.

 

If you think the guidelines need changing, email Groundspeak with your suggestion or start a new thread in the Website forum.

When he does start threads to suggest the guidelines need changing they get locked. :P

 

In the future we will only add the barest of information to event cache pages. Sad really. Less effort gets rewarded. Maybe we should just hold flash events. Please drive many miles and join us in camp for 15 minutes and then please leave.

Doug - you have the Socal 4x4 Geocachers website. The last time I looked you didn't have ads. You already put a write of the trips on the site. Why not link to the that for more information about the events. You can put whatever links you want for more information there. It seems that Geocaching.com does allow for event organizers to handle things that way. It may seem silly to make people have to click an extra link but it makes the frog happy.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Interesting. I would have done the same thing. I would have also emailed GS as the reviewer suggested. Just out of curiosity what is the problem with contacting appeals@GS ? I mean why is it that some seem to find it such an onerous task?

Link to comment

ANYONE who's tried to publish an event or cache since the guidelines change can tell you what will and will not be allowed...it's not that hard to understand! NO links to commercial sites alllowed on the page, no mentioning the name of the venue more than once (if commercial in nature), no hotel, no restaurant etc etc. This is mentioned in the guidelines...black and white! Maybe the blame should go to those who either don't follow the guidelines or don't read them!

Hmmm... Where exactly is all that detail about event caches in "black and white"? I just read the guidelines and see nothing that detailed. The ONLY reason I know about those restrictions is because I've read the forums. When the interpretation of the guidelines change (as evidenced by the new restrictions on events and links that is not stated in the guidelines) that can cause a lot of confusion amoung the multitude that don't hang out here in the forums.

Link to comment

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

You can't make an appeal if you don't know what the problem is. The first step was as they did, email the reviewer and ask for clarification.

 

I'm not seeing the issue either and would have asked for clarification.

 

I was under that impression at first, but looking at the OP and reading everything through I think the reviewer clearly states why.

Link to comment

Appeals can see everything the reviewer and cache owner does, so if you send them an email with a link to the cache page, they can look at it and determine if it's acceptable. If so, they will take care of getting it listed. If not, they can work with you on getting it listed within the guidelines.

Link to comment

Perhaps the following sections of the guidelines need to be rewritten

If your cache has been placed on hold, temporarily disabled or archived…

 

First please read the reviewer notes for an explanation. It is a common practice for the reviewers to place a cache on hold while they obtain additional details required for it to be published. A reviewer may temporarily disable a submission to provide time for the cache owner to make necessary changes to the cache placement or cache description. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it won’t be published. In order to ensure a prompt response when responding to a reviewer, please follow the contact instructions given by the reviewer in their note. If no other instructions are provided, click on the volunteer reviewer’s profile from the cache page and e-mail the reviewer through Geocaching.com. If you reply directly to the automated cache notification address, most likely you will not receive a reply.

 

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.

The first paragraph gives instructions for contacting the reviewer by following the instructions the reviewer gave or clicking on the volunteer reviewer’s profile from the cache page and e-mail the reviewer through Geocaching.com if no other instructions were given. It doesn't explicitly say to follow the reviewer's instructions to contact appeals@geocaching.com though I guess one could interpret it that way.

 

The second paragraph gives the appeals process and list the following order

  1. exchange of emails with reviewer
  2. ask for a review by the reviewers in their private discussion forum
  3. post in the Geocaching Topics section of the Groundspeak Forums
  4. send email to appeals@geocaching.com

I believe the OP thought they were following the appeals process as outlined in the guidelines. While they didn't immediately contact Groundspeak as the reviewer requested, it may have appeared that the reviewer was the one not following the guidelines here. Update the appeals paragraphs so that it is clear that a reviewer may give instructions to contact Geocaching.com particularly in case of caches that solicit or appear to be commercial in nature.

Link to comment

Perhaps the following sections of the guidelines need to be rewritten

If your cache has been placed on hold, temporarily disabled or archived…

 

First please read the reviewer notes for an explanation. It is a common practice for the reviewers to place a cache on hold while they obtain additional details required for it to be published. A reviewer may temporarily disable a submission to provide time for the cache owner to make necessary changes to the cache placement or cache description. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it won’t be published. In order to ensure a prompt response when responding to a reviewer, please follow the contact instructions given by the reviewer in their note. If no other instructions are provided, click on the volunteer reviewer’s profile from the cache page and e-mail the reviewer through Geocaching.com. If you reply directly to the automated cache notification address, most likely you will not receive a reply.

 

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.

The first paragraph gives instructions for contacting the reviewer by following the instructions the reviewer gave or clicking on the volunteer reviewer’s profile from the cache page and e-mail the reviewer through Geocaching.com if no other instructions were given. It doesn't explicitly say to follow the reviewer's instructions to contact appeals@geocaching.com though I guess one could interpret it that way.

 

The second paragraph gives the appeals process and list the following order

  1. exchange of emails with reviewer
  2. ask for a review by the reviewers in their private discussion forum
  3. post in the Geocaching Topics section of the Groundspeak Forums
  4. send email to appeals@geocaching.com

I believe the OP thought they were following the appeals process as outlined in the guidelines. While they didn't immediately contact Groundspeak as the reviewer requested, it may have appeared that the reviewer was the one not following the guidelines here. Update the appeals paragraphs so that it is clear that a reviewer may give instructions to contact Geocaching.com particularly in case of caches that solicit or appear to be commercial in nature.

 

At the risk of starting to sound like FireRef, I agree that some clarification here would sure help some folks out. As tozainamboku mentioned, there is guideline "creep" or interpretations that are shifting over time. On the whole, flexibility is a very good thing. However, when things start to tighten (no links to menus, etc), then either the guidelines need to reflect it or the reviewers need to explain it more clearly when they have to push back.

 

If someone has always listed their events with links to outside sites, they're not going to see what's suddenly a commercial violation.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...