Cache Event not approved

[+gof1]

...please follow the contact instructions given by the reviewer in their note.

[+egami]

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If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines.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.

 

Emphasis added.

 

Frankly, I think they should of followed the instructions provided. I agree there should have been better communication by the reviewer, but it doesn't sound like they actually did what they were asked.

 

Also, I am a bit confused why the OP's one reply says that the e-mail response that GC.com was looking came on the the 20th then later says it was on the 25th, but that's a different issue that is maybe beside the point.

 

*edit*

 

Also, the steps you listed out below is in reference to the section regarding archived caches, so to me that wouldn't apply at this point in the process.

Edited April 8, 2008 by egami

[+ShowStop]

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.

The lack of an email sent to contact or appeals @gc.com was likely due to the the conflicting emails that were received. The reviewer note on the cache page said email Groundspeak, another later email from a different reviewer says the admins are discussing the issue. The email probably should have been sent to Groundspeak anyways, but it apparently didn't happen.

 

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.

That was not the purpose of the event. Our events generally coincide with 4x4 trips already planned, but the events are staged at restaurants or camping spots, etc. and more of a meet and greet event. We often get locals that attend the events but not join the 4x4 trip.

 

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.

Many of our events are in some out-of-the-way places, but thats usually because the site where we are camping isn't next to the local pizza place. I did a quick check and only 2 of our 8 past events had terrain ratings higher then 1. Of course we welcome all to our events, they are just not always in a place the family minivan can drive to.

 

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. <snip> 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.

It pains me to say it , but I have to agree with you there. Several of our other listings have included similar links for others to reference. Its challenging sometimes to relay needed info to others that do not know how to prepare themselves for such events in the remote spots we select. We opt to post links to informative websites in lieu of retyping every bit of info on the event page. The recent shift by Groundspeak and their reviewers to be more stringent when scanning for commerical content bit us on this listing when from our prospective we listed the event the same way as we have in the past.

[+ShowStop]

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.

Yeah I agree. While the guidelines haven't drastically changed, the method of enforcement has changed. What may have been borderline before is over the line now. Just another level of confusion to those submitting cache listings.

[+ventura_kids]

I agree with everyone....

[Clan Riffster]

Yours is a classic case of "listening with your answer running".

That needs to be on a T-shirt!

 

In the future we will only add the barest of information to event cache pages. Sad really.

Ah, the old "Cut off the nose to spite the face" solution. Let us know how that works for you.

Brother, the reviewer told you what the problem was. Anyone that has been caching for more than 5 seconds can see the link as being commercial in nature. Rather than follow the instructions you were given, you opted for a different solution, and when your efforts failed, you want to pout about it?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Isn't it about time somebody called somebody else an "idot" so we can walk away from this train wreck?

[+Totem Clan]

You IDOT!

 

Don't you know anything!?!

 

You compare them to Hilter.

 

 

 

 

[+KoosKoos]

Isn't it about time somebody called somebody else an "idot" so we can walk away from this train wreck?

 

What an idotic thing to say!!!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

He said Hilter! Doesn't that invoke some thread-closing law or something?

[+ShowStop]

Brother, the reviewer told you what the problem was. Anyone that has been caching for more than 5 seconds can see the link as being commercial in nature. Rather than follow the instructions you were given, you opted for a different solution, and when your efforts failed, you want to pout about it?

Didn't we cover this ground already? The reviewer say the problem was commercial content, but not what specifically what part of the listing it came from. There were 3 links on the page. Were all the links an issue? I guess anybody thats been on the forums for 5 seconds might know that.

[+Moose Mob]

Please, let's keep this on topic. And that's my final warning.

[+egami]

Brother, the reviewer told you what the problem was. Anyone that has been caching for more than 5 seconds can see the link as being commercial in nature. Rather than follow the instructions you were given, you opted for a different solution, and when your efforts failed, you want to pout about it?

Didn't we cover this ground already? The reviewer say the problem was commercial content, but not what specifically what part of the listing it came from. There were 3 links on the page. Were all the links an issue? I guess anybody thats been on the forums for 5 seconds might know that.

 

Personally, I think it's pretty obvious when looking at the content, and seeing the note the reviewer wrote, that the issue is going to be with links to a site that is selling items.

[+gof1]

Lets drag this horse once more around the block.

[+Prime Suspect]

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.

 

Unlike caches that are too close together, or an event posted too late, the commercial content of a cache page is a BUSINESS concern. This site exists in part because of commercial advertising placed on cache pages and elsewhere. Obviously, in the case of commercial content, volunteer Reviewers can't make the decision of what commercial content can stay and what has to go. Likewise, neither will a consensus of forum users make any difference. It's a BUSINESS issue, and the decision has to be made at the appropriate level.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

It's interesting that some excerpts from the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines were posted by ShowStop but not the ones pertaining to Commercial Caches.

 

The guidelines CLEARLY state that the cacher is to contact Groundspeak directly regarding inclusion of commercial content on the cache page.

 

Commercial Caches

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

 

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.

[+KoosKoos]

It's interesting that some excerpts from the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines were posted by ShowStop but not the ones pertaining to Commercial Caches.

 

The guidelines CLEARLY state that the cacher is to contact Groundspeak directly regarding inclusion of commercial content on the cache page.

 

Commercial Caches

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

 

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.

Without a doubt and I agree with Prime on why the reviewers won't be the ones making the final call. The misunderstanding arose because the hiders didn't list any more commercial content than they had previously and therefore didn't see that they NEEDED permission from TPTB until the reviewer said something.

 

Yes, the hiders were at fault for not going to Groundspeak immediately and following through. The initial feedback to them could have been a little more clear too.

 

To me, it's another instance where a guideline has been tightened from what was allowed before and the community isn't aware of this until their newest placement butts into it.

 

I'm not arguing for/against the tightening. I just think a little proactive customer service on the part of reviewers and Groundspeak might make things a little smoother.

 

And if we can prevent just one angsty "my cache was denied even though I've hidden 12 others just like this" thread, isn't that worth the cost?

[+ShowStop]

Without a doubt and I agree with Prime on why the reviewers won't be the ones making the final call. The misunderstanding arose because the hiders didn't list any more commercial content than they had previously and therefore didn't see that they NEEDED permission from TPTB until the reviewer said something.

 

Yes, the hiders were at fault for not going to Groundspeak immediately and following through. The initial feedback to them could have been a little more clear too.

 

To me, it's another instance where a guideline has been tightened from what was allowed before and the community isn't aware of this until their newest placement butts into it.

 

I'm not arguing for/against the tightening. I just think a little proactive customer service on the part of reviewers and Groundspeak might make things a little smoother.

 

And if we can prevent just one angsty "my cache was denied even though I've hidden 12 others just like this" thread, isn't that worth the cost?

Can I hire you to write my posts in the future? Well said BTW!

[+PJPeters]

 

Without a doubt and I agree with Prime on why the reviewers won't be the ones making the final call. The misunderstanding arose because the hiders didn't list any more commercial content than they had previously and therefore didn't see that they NEEDED permission from TPTB until the reviewer said something.

 

Yes, the hiders were at fault for not going to Groundspeak immediately and following through. The initial feedback to them could have been a little more clear too.

 

To me, it's another instance where a guideline has been tightened from what was allowed before and the community isn't aware of this until their newest placement butts into it.

 

I'm not arguing for/against the tightening. I just think a little proactive customer service on the part of reviewers and Groundspeak might make things a little smoother.

 

And if we can prevent just one angsty "my cache was denied even though I've hidden 12 others just like this" thread, isn't that worth the cost?

We (Michigan Geocachers) saw this coming pretty quickly. There was a rather civil discussion on the MiGO message board, where we got the facts that we needed to know about, the fact that it was out of the hands of the Reviewers, and not to be offended if the cache page got kicked up to appeals. They were told, essentially:

We are not given enough information on how to help a cacher modify their page and make it non-commercial enough, and we've been told to *not* help....

So it's not like they don't want to help, but that they cannot.

More:

Part of being a volunteer reviewer is that you don't have to agree with all the rules but we have an obligation to apply them.

 

Interpretations of guidelines morph over time and its a dynamic process that is not new and will continue. We are trying to understand the commercial pollicy so that we can apply it in a fair and consistent manner and for now we are forced to err on the side of zero tolerance.

[+KoosKoos]

Without a doubt and I agree with Prime on why the reviewers won't be the ones making the final call. The misunderstanding arose because the hiders didn't list any more commercial content than they had previously and therefore didn't see that they NEEDED permission from TPTB until the reviewer said something.

 

Yes, the hiders were at fault for not going to Groundspeak immediately and following through. The initial feedback to them could have been a little more clear too.

 

To me, it's another instance where a guideline has been tightened from what was allowed before and the community isn't aware of this until their newest placement butts into it.

 

I'm not arguing for/against the tightening. I just think a little proactive customer service on the part of reviewers and Groundspeak might make things a little smoother.

 

And if we can prevent just one angsty "my cache was denied even though I've hidden 12 others just like this" thread, isn't that worth the cost?

Can I hire you to write my posts in the future? Well said BTW!

Absolutely...I include a paypal link on all of my cache hides to solicit money for all my endeavors.

[Clan Riffster]

The reviewer say the problem was commercial content, but not what specifically what part of the listing it came from.

Was it really that hard to figure out?

I'd guess it wasn't the coords. I see those on lots of cache pages.

Probably not the cache page owner either, using the same logic.

Could it be the link that included a web based store?

That sounds kinda commercial to me...

Maybe I need another 5 seconds in the forums to obtain your viewpoint.

 

The event lister was given the tools necessary to resolve their dilema. They chose not to use those tools. Then they pouted.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Clan Riffster

[cowcreekgeeks]

 

Poor Horse

Edited April 9, 2008 by cowcreekgeeks

[CoyoteRed]

So it's not like they don't want to help, but that they cannot.

Okay, they're told to not help. Are they also told to not kick it upstairs themselves and to put the onus on the cache owner to do so? The reviewers are the experts in the process and the cache owners are less so. (Otherwise, why have reviewers at all?)

 

That's what I'm wondering. Why create two paths for the cache owner to follow when the reviewer could have just as easily just kicked it upstairs to a Groundspeak admin? No, I'm not saying every non-approved cache needs to be reviewed by higher ups, but when it is recommended to do so, why not just do it? Seems like the right thing to so from a customer service point of view.

 

From where I'm sitting is almost seems as if Groundspeak staff is hoping for folks to not follow the appeals process thus reducing workload versus having the appeal being automatic.

[+sbell111]

So it's not like they don't want to help, but that they cannot.

Okay, they're told to not help. Are they also told to not kick it upstairs themselves and to put the onus on the cache owner to do so? The reviewers are the experts in the process and the cache owners are less so. (Otherwise, why have reviewers at all?)

 

That's what I'm wondering. Why create two paths for the cache owner to follow when the reviewer could have just as easily just kicked it upstairs to a Groundspeak admin? No, I'm not saying every non-approved cache needs to be reviewed by higher ups, but when it is recommended to do so, why not just do it? Seems like the right thing to so from a customer service point of view.

 

From where I'm sitting is almost seems as if Groundspeak staff is hoping for folks to not follow the appeals process thus reducing workload versus having the appeal being automatic.

The reason is simple. Those cachers who are submitting the clearly over-the-line commercial cache will not bother with making an appeal. There's no reason for these caches to be automatically appealed.

Edited April 9, 2008 by sbell111

[+Quiggle]

We review the listing and if it doesn't fit the guidelines, it's up to the cache owner to get it taken care of. If this means they need to go through appeals (who is the only one who can make the decision), why should there be a 3rd person involved at that point? Does the reviewer need to be the middle-man? No. The cacher is responsible for their listing if they want it published.

[+tozainamboku]

The reviewer say the problem was commercial content, but not what specifically what part of the listing it came from.

Was it really that hard to figure out?

I'd guess it wasn't the coords. I see those on lots of cache pages.

Probably not the cache page owner either, using the same logic.

Could it be the link that included a web based store?

That sounds kinda commercial to me...

Maybe I need another 5 seconds in the forums to obtain your viewpoint.

 

The event lister was given the tools necessary to resolve their dilema. They chose not to use those tools. Then they pouted.

Did you even look at the questionable link? It's a website that has information on 4x4 trails in the desert. The link page was a description of the route to Barker Ranch. It has a few banner ads in the margins of the page including a link to that websites own store. It kinda looks like a page on Geocaching.com with ads and a link to the Groundspeak store. In the past the OP has used links to this site to provide information on the routes to take to get some of their remote caches and these were approved. A change in the interpretation of the guidelines made what used to be an allowed link to one that requires Groundspeak to review the cache. Groundspeak apparently sent a memo to the reviewers to explain the change but didn't think it was necessary to update the guidelines so that the rest of us knew. A member of the OP group has already posted here admitting that they should've followed the reviewer's instructions to appeal, but they got mixed signals and the posted appeals process in the guidelines were not clear.

 

We review the listing and if it doesn't fit the guidelines, it's up to the cache owner to get it taken care of. If this means they need to go through appeals (who is the only one who can make the decision), why should there be a 3rd person involved at that point? Does the reviewer need to be the middle-man? No. The cacher is responsible for their listing if they want it published.

The section in the guidelines about appeals should be updated. It should specifically address caches that have commerical content and caches that solicit where the reviewers have been told that these caches must be approved by Groundspeak.

[+Quiggle]

We review the listing and if it doesn't fit the guidelines, it's up to the cache owner to get it taken care of. If this means they need to go through appeals (who is the only one who can make the decision), why should there be a 3rd person involved at that point? Does the reviewer need to be the middle-man? No. The cacher is responsible for their listing if they want it published.

The section in the guidelines about appeals should be updated. It should specifically address caches that have commerical content and caches that solicit where the reviewers have been told that these caches must be approved by Groundspeak.

 

That's what it says.

 

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

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

 

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.

 

Should it be changed to not say that and then changed back? If the reviewer says "Talk to Groundspeak" and the person submitting the listing does NOT do that, how is that anyone's problem except the person who didn't follow the channels as they were instructed to do?

[+tozainamboku]

Quiggle is right that the guidelines currently state that you should get permission from Groundspeak before posting a commercial cache. The problem is that the definition of commercial was changed without an update to the guidelines. Now simply linking to a website that has advertising on it is commercial. Either change the guidelines so we have a definition of commercial so we know what requires pre-approval (not likely to happen since Groundspeak likes to have flexible guidelines) or realize that some people will submit caches that they have no reason to suspect are commercial.

 

If you are going to add emphasis to the current guideline it belongs on the last two sentences:

"If you are in doubt, ask first. If you do not have advance permission, your reviewer will refer you to Groundspeak."

 

Since the Groundspeak can send memos to the reviewers changing the interpretation of the guidelines without informing the geocaching community perhaps I am always in doubt. Should I email contact@geocaching.com before every cache I submit - just in case there is a new interpretation?

 

I guess they do understand that I might not realize that I have commercial content and submit a cache without advanced permission since they included a clause that if I do not have advanced permission the reviewer will refer me to Groundspeak. I still think this could be made clearer. But my main complaint is that it is different than the appeals process listed at the beginning of the guidelines. It is easy to understand why a geocacher could be confused as to whether a cache was turned down by an appealable reviewer decision or that the reviewer is simply indicating that this is a cache that must be pre-approved by Groundspeak. I am simply suggesting that the special cases of commercial caches and caches that solicit should be mentioned in the regular appeals process.

 

What is so hard about making updates to guidelines? I'm beginning to understand that frustration of some other recent posters who think that Groundspeak doesn't listen to geocachers. Groundspeak thought the change in the interpretation of what is commercial was important enough to send a memo to the reviewers but decided that some phrase buried down in the guidelines already covered it so they could be lazy and not make the update.

[+Quiggle]

Quiggle is right that the guidelines currently state that you should get permission from Groundspeak before posting a commercial cache. The problem is that the definition of commercial was changed without an update to the guidelines. Now simply linking to a website that has advertising on it is commercial. Either change the guidelines so we have a definition of commercial so we know what requires pre-approval (not likely to happen since Groundspeak likes to have flexible guidelines) or realize that some people will submit caches that they have no reason to suspect are commercial.

So then they are referred to Groundspeak for an exception. I've done it numerous times, and if the person chooses to appeal, they either get it published as-is or are given information on how to make it compliant.

 

Did you miss the reviewer note on the cache page that says:

 

"I have reviewed your geocache submission for listing on the website. I'm writing to ask you to ask you to email appeals@Groundspeak.com in reference to the commercial content on the listing. Make sure to include the URL of the listing and/or at the least the GC# of the page."

 

The OP did not do that, and somehow that's the fault of Groundspeak and/or the guidelines?

[+Team GeoBlast]

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 was just thinking that the OP had just wasted mine and a lot of other people's time and THEN I read this.

 

It is my hope that the knowledge that probably all reviewers have to deal with this type of thing on occasion should help make everyone just a little more understanding of what their life must be like. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank our reviewer Erik for being fair, prompt, and professional.

[+Totem Clan]

The OP did not do that, and somehow that's the fault of Groundspeak and/or the guidelines?

That's what happens when folks live by the mantra....

 

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

[+Team GeoBlast]

Quiggle is right that the guidelines currently state that you should get permission from Groundspeak before posting a commercial cache. The problem is that the definition of commercial was changed without an update to the guidelines. Now simply linking to a website that has advertising on it is commercial. Either change the guidelines so we have a definition of commercial so we know what requires pre-approval (not likely to happen since Groundspeak likes to have flexible guidelines) or realize that some people will submit caches that they have no reason to suspect are commercial.

 

If you are going to add emphasis to the current guideline it belongs on the last two sentences:

"If you are in doubt, ask first. If you do not have advance permission, your reviewer will refer you to Groundspeak."

 

Since the Groundspeak can send memos to the reviewers changing the interpretation of the guidelines without informing the geocaching community perhaps I am always in doubt. Should I email contact@geocaching.com before every cache I submit - just in case there is a new interpretation?

 

I guess they do understand that I might not realize that I have commercial content and submit a cache without advanced permission since they included a clause that if I do not have advanced permission the reviewer will refer me to Groundspeak. I still think this could be made clearer. But my main complaint is that it is different than the appeals process listed at the beginning of the guidelines. It is easy to understand why a geocacher could be confused as to whether a cache was turned down by an appealable reviewer decision or that the reviewer is simply indicating that this is a cache that must be pre-approved by Groundspeak. I am simply suggesting that the special cases of commercial caches and caches that solicit should be mentioned in the regular appeals process.

 

What is so hard about making updates to guidelines? I'm beginning to understand that frustration of some other recent posters who think that Groundspeak doesn't listen to geocachers. Groundspeak thought the change in the interpretation of what is commercial was important enough to send a memo to the reviewers but decided that some phrase buried down in the guidelines already covered it so they could be lazy and not make the update.

 

My guess is that GC.com wants to put out periodic updates to the guidelines that involve more than one change and then send out a global notification to all cachers. If they kept making small changes in the guidelines and informing everyone that there was a change, it could get very annoying with all those updates. If you kept making small changes and chose to not tell everyone, that would be a ticket for disaster.

[Clan Riffster]

Did you even look at the questionable link?

Was that a rhetorical question?

Since you're not known for nonsensical arguments, I'll assume it was not.

Yes. I looked at the link.

I saw the commercial nature of the website it linked to.

 

It kinda looks like a page on Geocaching.com with ads and a link to the Groundspeak store.

If the linked page had belonged to Groundspeak, I doubt there would've been an issue. Unfortunately, the linked page belonged to another for-profit company.

 

A member of the OP group has already posted here admitting that they should've followed the reviewer's instructions to appeal, but they got mixed signals and the posted appeals process in the guidelines were not clear.

Mixed signals? How is, "E-mail appeals@Groundspeak .com" mixed? The reviewer whose lap the cache fell into told them exactly what to do. They chose not to do it. Doesn't sound very mixed to me.

 

But my main complaint is that it is different than the appeals process listed at the beginning of the guidelines.

Perhaps there are a few unfortunate souls who could, conceivably be confused by the guidelines. Personally, I don't see how, as they appear pretty clear to me, but for the sake of argument, I'll assume that's true.

Were these same unfortunate souls also confused by the note telling them to "E-mail appeals@Groundspeak .com"?

Sorry. I've been told that I'm dumber than a bag of hammers, and I figured it out. I seriously doubt there is anyone on the planet denser than I am.

 

The OP did not do that, and somehow that's the fault of Groundspeak and/or the guidelines?

Of course! Break out the torches and pitchforks!

(I'll bring the Guinness)

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I'd have to agree, From the info I read in the OP, it looks as is the suggestion to email GC was not followed.

[+tozainamboku]

I'd have to agree, From the info I read in the OP, it looks as is the suggestion to email GC was not followed.

Well if WRITE SHOP ROBERT says that the OP was wrong and GC.COM is right and there is no need to change the guidelines I will shut up now.

[+Dave_W6DPS]

.....I saw the commercial nature of the website it linked to.....

 

I don't see it. I think the issue is what constitutes a "commercial" cache.

 

I don't think that a geocaching group with ad banners or links to a store on their page is commercial.

 

My homepage, as listed on my profile, is on a "free" hosting site that uses banner ads to fund the site. Does that make my profile, or homepage, commercial?

 

Debate of appeal procedures aside, I think the definition of "commercial" being used here is a bit unreasonable.

 

So any geocaching group that sells t-shirts or geocoins through their website are not allowed to list that website on an event cache listing?

 

Neither is a group that has banner ads on their site?

 

Yes, I am one of those SoCal4x4Geocachers, and I also associate with the folks at www.cachaddicts.org forums, and the www.SoCalGeocachers.com mob. But don't tell anyone--it might seem like a commerical post in the Groundspeak forums!

 

I think the definition of "commercial" has gotten out of hand...

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

(

[+BlueDeuce]

I think the definition of "commercial" has gotten out of hand...

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

(

 

Perhaps, however the issue at hand is when a reviewer decides that the link appears to be commercial they refer you to to Groundspeak. You address it with GS and the issue is decided.

 

If you feel that the definition is 'out of hand' talk to Groundspeak. I'm not really sure how you expect things to change if you don't go to the source.

 

 

edit: missing word

Edited April 9, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+BlueDeuce]

I'd have to agree, From the info I read in the OP, it looks as is the suggestion to email GC was not followed.

Well if WRITE SHOP ROBERT says that the OP was wrong and GC.COM is right and there is no need to change the guidelines I will shut up now.

 

tsk, tsk, don't get personal now.

[+Cache Liberation Front]

Could it be the reviewer made a mistake? Sure.

I'm sorry, but no. The guidelines are clear about commercial content.

 

I'm confused. The Socal'ers cache contained an informative link to the DesertUSA site, clearly intending for it to be a link to provide further depth and background of the area in which they were gathering for the event (yes, it appears there are some commercial links on that site, but note the Socal'ers didn't link directly to the actual commercial opportunities, but to the information). A reviewer didn't feel comfortable with the link, and instead of simply asking for its removal, he didn't publish the cache.

 

Hmm. Well, what about this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

The link on the main page is chock-full of commercial plugs. The link on that cache page has nothing to do with providing historical background of the area in which the cachers are congregating. Yet that got published.

 

Now please note, I completely, 100% agree that geocaching has to be defended from any encroaching commercialization. But having said, using the fear of commercialization as a straw argument or bugbear to hide selective persecution behind is not the solution.

 

How can folks not see the double-standard here, a problem which could easily be solved by simply being more clear in the posting guidelines? When mntn-man writes "The guidelines are clear about commercial content," I think he's being incredibly naive. There's nothing clear here, whatsoever.

 

Just my two copper,

Mr. Wisearse.

[+Cache Liberation Front]

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.

 

It's rather sad, but this is what Groundspeak seems to be implying. It seems the superficial, for the number flash mob event that takes zero effort to put together, and that does very little for the reputation of geocachers other than make them appear to be even more mentally deranged, is the wave of the future, and to hell with events which actually try and explore the history and geography of the locales.

 

Number whores 1

Historians 0

 

Mr. Wisearse.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Could it be the reviewer made a mistake? Sure.

I'm sorry, but no. The guidelines are clear about commercial content.

 

I'm confused. The Socal'ers cache contained an informative link to the DesertUSA site, clearly intending for it to be a link to provide further depth and background of the area in which they were gathering for the event (yes, it appears there are some commercial links on that site, but note the Socal'ers didn't link directly to the actual commercial opportunities, but to the information). A reviewer didn't feel comfortable with the link, and instead of simply asking for its removal, he didn't publish the cache.

 

Hmm. Well, what about this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

The link on the main page is chock-full of commercial plugs. The link on that cache page has nothing to do with providing historical background of the area in which the cachers are congregating. Yet that got published.

 

How can folks not see the double-standard here, a problem which could easily be solved by simply being more clear in the posting guidelines? When mntn-man writes "The guidelines are clear about commercial content," I think he's being incredibly naive. There's nothing clear here, whatsoever.

 

Just my two copper,

Mr. Wisearse.

 

Selective persecution?? A cache was submitted and denied. They were told to contact GS and didn't...where's the persecution?? Where's the confusion? I didn't understand before, and I still don't...the reviewer put his instructions right on the cache page for the owner to see. The owner got an email generated by this note, yet the owner decided NOT to do what he was told...where's the confusion??

 

Pretty clear to me...and I'm probably the slowest one here!

[+sbell111]

Could it be the reviewer made a mistake? Sure.

I'm sorry, but no. The guidelines are clear about commercial content.

I'm confused. The Socal'ers cache contained an informative link to the DesertUSA site, clearly intending for it to be a link to provide further depth and background of the area in which they were gathering for the event (yes, it appears there are some commercial links on that site, but note the Socal'ers didn't link directly to the actual commercial opportunities, but to the information). A reviewer didn't feel comfortable with the link, and instead of simply asking for its removal, he didn't publish the cache.

 

Hmm. Well, what about this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

The link on the main page is chock-full of commercial plugs. The link on that cache page has nothing to do with providing historical background of the area in which the cachers are congregating. Yet that got published.

 

How can folks not see the double-standard here, a problem which could easily be solved by simply being more clear in the posting guidelines? When mntn-man writes "The guidelines are clear about commercial content," I think he's being incredibly naive. There's nothing clear here, whatsoever.

 

Just my two copper,

Mr. Wisearse.

Selective persecution?? A cache was submitted and denied. They were told to contact GS and didn't...where's the persecution?? Where's the confusion? I didn't understand before, and I still don't...the reviewer put his instructions right on the cache page for the owner to see. The owner got an email generated by this note, yet the owner decided NOT to do what he was told...where's the confusion??

 

Pretty clear to me...and I'm probably the slowest one here!

I'm sure that there are plenty of people slower than you, intentionally or not. (Just kidding!!!)

 

to Mr. Wisearse, I don't see how the argument can be made that just because one cache violated the guidelines and slipped through that all caches should be allowed through.

Edited April 11, 2008 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

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.

 

It's rather sad, but this is what Groundspeak seems to be implying. It seems the superficial, for the number flash mob event that takes zero effort to put together, and that does very little for the reputation of geocachers other than make them appear to be even more mentally deranged, is the wave of the future, and to hell with events which actually try and explore the history and geography of the locales.

 

Number whores 1

Historians 0

 

Mr. Wisearse.

 

Again...not really even close! You DO understand that you can add your own clickable link which can go straight to an event info page...right? If anything, giving me the reason to do this made my event even MORE personalized and informative!! I'd have never had the reason to set up a sererate site and put in all the great pictures and info which really makes my event seem "professional"...but nope, just a guy given a reason to be creative! Check it out...event page has clickable link near bottom of description!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...22-bf3e3d390221

 

I mean...even a blog for Q&A's...WOW!

[+mtn-man]

I'm confused. <snip>

Groundspeak makes this decision. I would suggest that you write to appeals@geocaching.com for resolution on this issue.

 

I am sorry that you do not understand the decision regarding commercial caches, but at this time that decision is final. I cannot explain it any further. Please write the site directly at the email address given above. I do sincerely hope that you are able to enjoy the game.

[+Cache Liberation Front]

Could it be the reviewer made a mistake? Sure.

I'm sorry, but no. The guidelines are clear about commercial content.

I'm confused. The Socal'ers cache contained an informative link to the DesertUSA site, clearly intending for it to be a link to provide further depth and background of the area in which they were gathering for the event (yes, it appears there are some commercial links on that site, but note the Socal'ers didn't link directly to the actual commercial opportunities, but to the information). A reviewer didn't feel comfortable with the link, and instead of simply asking for its removal, he didn't publish the cache.

 

Hmm. Well, what about this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

The link on the main page is chock-full of commercial plugs. The link on that cache page has nothing to do with providing historical background of the area in which the cachers are congregating. Yet that got published.

 

How can folks not see the double-standard here, a problem which could easily be solved by simply being more clear in the posting guidelines? When mntn-man writes "The guidelines are clear about commercial content," I think he's being incredibly naive. There's nothing clear here, whatsoever.

 

Just my two copper,

Mr. Wisearse.

Selective persecution?? A cache was submitted and denied. They were told to contact GS and didn't...where's the persecution?? Where's the confusion? I didn't understand before, and I still don't...the reviewer put his instructions right on the cache page for the owner to see. The owner got an email generated by this note, yet the owner decided NOT to do what he was told...where's the confusion??

 

Pretty clear to me...and I'm probably the slowest one here!

I'm sure that there are plenty of people slower than you, intentionally or not. (Just kidding!!!)

 

to Mr. Wisearse, I don't see how the argument can be made that just because one cache violated the guidelines and slipped through that all caches should be allowed through.

 

That's not my point, sad how you should reduce it to that. My point's rather clear, in that hiding behind this naïveté, thinking that the rules are crystal clear, is clearly unproductive to a healthy and happy geocaching experience.

 

MrW.

[+Cache Liberation Front]

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.

 

It's rather sad, but this is what Groundspeak seems to be implying. It seems the superficial, for the number flash mob event that takes zero effort to put together, and that does very little for the reputation of geocachers other than make them appear to be even more mentally deranged, is the wave of the future, and to hell with events which actually try and explore the history and geography of the locales.

 

Number whores 1

Historians 0

 

Mr. Wisearse.

 

Again...not really even close! You DO understand that you can add your own clickable link which can go straight to an event info page...right? If anything, giving me the reason to do this made my event even MORE personalized and informative!! I'd have never had the reason to set up a sererate site and put in all the great pictures and info which really makes my event seem "professional"...but nope, just a guy given a reason to be creative! Check it out...event page has clickable link near bottom of description!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...22-bf3e3d390221

 

I mean...even a blog for Q&A's...WOW!

 

By the standards to which the SoCal'ers event was denied, your event cache should not have been published, either, since the link at the bottom of the description includes links to clearly commerical sites, like http://www.personalgeocoins.com.

 

Thanks for making my point, that there's nothing clear about the event guidelines, and something needs to be changed lest more selective persecution ensues.

 

MrW.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'm confused. <snip>

Groundspeak makes this decision. I would suggest that you write to appeals@geocaching.com for resolution on this issue.

 

I am sorry that you do not understand the decision regarding commercial caches, but at this time that decision is final. I cannot explain it any further. Please write the site directly at the email address given above. I do sincerely hope that you are able to enjoy the game.

 

I like that new catch phrase....lol

[+tozainamboku]

Again...not really even close! You DO understand that you can add your own clickable link which can go straight to an event info page...right? If anything, giving me the reason to do this made my event even MORE personalized and informative!!

Since I haven't seen the lodestone memo that gave the reviewers guidance as to what is now considered commercial and what isn't, I will have to take your word that an event that links to the event organizers' personal event info page, which is chock full of adds for commercial sites and event sponsors, can be approved by a reviewer while a link to an info page not set up for the event - for instance with information about 4x4 trails or the local historical society must be pre-approved by Groundspeak. Both your example and the one Mr. Wisearse gave seem to confirm this. Perhaps Groundspeak or a reviewer can confirm as to whether I am interpreting the unpublished guideline correctly

[+sbell111]

I think that if someone wants to be a victim, then they will be.

[+Rockin Roddy]

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.

 

It's rather sad, but this is what Groundspeak seems to be implying. It seems the superficial, for the number flash mob event that takes zero effort to put together, and that does very little for the reputation of geocachers other than make them appear to be even more mentally deranged, is the wave of the future, and to hell with events which actually try and explore the history and geography of the locales.

 

Number whores 1

Historians 0

 

Mr. Wisearse.

 

Again...not really even close! You DO understand that you can add your own clickable link which can go straight to an event info page...right? If anything, giving me the reason to do this made my event even MORE personalized and informative!! I'd have never had the reason to set up a sererate site and put in all the great pictures and info which really makes my event seem "professional"...but nope, just a guy given a reason to be creative! Check it out...event page has clickable link near bottom of description!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...22-bf3e3d390221

 

I mean...even a blog for Q&A's...WOW!

 

By the standards to which the SoCal'ers event was denied, your event cache should not have been published, either, since the link at the bottom of the description includes links to clearly commerical sites, like http://www.personalgeocoins.com.

 

Thanks for making my point, that there's nothing clear about the event guidelines, and something needs to be changed lest more selective persecution ensues.

 

MrW.

 

Not at all...the site I'm linked to is MY personal site. We in Michigan were fortunate to have been given hands-on guidance in what is allowed. You can link to personal sites which can then mention and give links to businesses like hotels, restaurants and sponsors!