Jump to content

The "unwritten rules" of geocache approval


ExTechOp

Recommended Posts

I'm confused.

 

I went back and read the op several times.

 

Is the OP saying his mystery won't be listed because part of the cache includes a geocache that is duel listed at both GC AND NC or is he saying that part of the cache includes a geocache that is listed exclusively with NC?

 

If the first is true, I don't see what the problem is as long as the OP simply omits any reference to NC.

 

If the second is true, then why in the world would the OP even attempt to list it with GC to begin with? At what point do we start seeing a little common sense come into play?

 

Oh I forgot; common sense isn't really as common as one might think. :lol:

Link to comment

Unfortunately, as lacking properly written rules the approvers are pretty much free to do what they want.........

 

"Properly written"? Oh, I see. "Properly written" is your code for "written to suit your personal desires". Anything that doesn't suit that is "improperly written". Got it. Glad you cleared that up for us.

 

 

...... and less highly innovative and exciting caches which push the envelope.

 

Hmmm... You're suggesting that after devoting his entire life to building a website and business to cater to a fledgling hobby, Mr. Irish sits around trying to find ways to stifle growth.

 

Certain posts here make me really glad I'm not a volunteer reviewer. You've added another one to the list.

Link to comment

Me and some of my geocaching buddies have occasionally found "unwritten rules", ie. things not mentioned in the official guidelines that still will make it impossible to get a cache approved....

 

These rules do exist and they get posted in the forums regularly. A mod or reviewer pointed out another guideline that gave reviewers broad discression in applying their experience to reviewing caches.

There is no specific rule in the guidelines about using a Navicache.com listed cache as a clue on a GC.com cache. Even though Navicache is non commercial etc. asking this site to allow the use of that site in a cache is more than you would expect them to do. You would have better luck reversing the cache and using a cache listed on this site as a clue on a cache listed on that site. But I'd ask first. Just in case.

Link to comment
Even though Navicache is non commercial etc.

I disagree. You have said that this site is a company, a commercial site. I agree with that. Navicache is too. I am sure that he does it for a profit, though probably a small one with the user base, and is most likely not in business as a non-profit organization. He sells items to support the site (though he doesn't have the link right, which is simply amazing). He solicits funding. That is a commercial site.

Link to comment

 

Thank you, I would prefer trying to change the processes and procedures to ones I like better. In a community-based effort (which geocaching most certainly still is, in spite of the corporate core providing the infrastructure) this is known as democracy, I'm sure you are familiar with the word?

 

pardon me for skipping to the end.

 

actually, this is not a democracy. and communty-based efforts are often not democracies. come to think of it, our country isn't a democracy, either, no matter how many people use the word incorrectly.

 

i'm quite familiar with the word, but i'm not sure you have a working understanding of it.

 

whatever its faults and benefits are, Groundspeak is a for-profit company, and it's silly to expect it to use its infrastructure to do anything with a(n albeit smaller) competitor.

 

historically, if you're paying attention, back in the old days there was a lot more innovation. i liked it that way, but i understand a growing company's need to cut back on the loose cannons. just the fact that more peopel are playing means there's going to be more standardization and more mediocre hides. that's what happens when you let the unwashed masses play.

Link to comment

 

Thank you, I would prefer trying to change the processes and procedures to ones I like better. In a community-based effort (which geocaching most certainly still is, in spite of the corporate core providing the infrastructure) this is known as democracy, I'm sure you are familiar with the word?

 

pardon me for skipping to the end.

 

actually, this is not a democracy. and communty-based efforts are often not democracies. come to think of it, our country isn't a democracy, either, no matter how many people use the word incorrectly.

 

i'm quite familiar with the word, but i'm not sure you have a working understanding of it.

 

whatever its faults and benefits are, Groundspeak is a for-profit company, and it's silly to expect it to use its infrastructure to do anything with a(n albeit smaller) competitor.

 

historically, if you're paying attention, back in the old days there was a lot more innovation. i liked it that way, but i understand a growing company's need to cut back on the loose cannons. just the fact that more peopel are playing means there's going to be more standardization and more mediocre hides. that's what happens when you let the unwashed masses play.

 

Who you calling unwashed! Shees, miss one shower and you're labeled for life.

Link to comment
Even though Navicache is non commercial etc.

...He sells items to support the site .... He solicits funding. That is a commercial site.

 

That definition makes most state and local geocaching organizations commercial in that they often have paypal links and merchandise to help pay for the site. I don't think they are commercial but it does illustrate the difference in our thinking. Terracaching.com is also commercial in that he would like to be able to make a living doing that site so he can focus on it full time. The definition of commercial is certainly fuzzy enough to cover both our views.

Link to comment

I thought about that with geo-orgs. I think the difference is that the geo-orgs just want to make enough money to pay for shelters and some event where you provide drinks and some food. Some are registered non-profit. Most want to appear non-profit for liability sake (I know the GGA does). Like you say, terracaching and navicache would probably like to make enough money so they could do it full time. When Jeremy started this site, he wasn't doing it full time. He decided to do what it takes to make the site a money-maker by ramping up services and offering perks for paying for higher level services. It worked.

Link to comment

Me and some of my geocaching buddies have occasionally found "unwritten rules", ie. things not mentioned in the official guidelines that still will make it impossible to get a cache approved.

 

The latest thing I personally found out was that it won't be possible to get approval for a geocache that uses a Navicache as part of a mystery, or even mentions the existence of this independent caching site. The simple solution of course is to not mention the cache in question is registered in Navicache, but this kind of political hair-splitting just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And before someone chimes in with "websites requiring personal information", no, you do not need to register with navicache.com to see full cache details, as opposed to geocaching.com

 

Unfortunately, as lacking properly written rules the approvers are pretty much free to do what they want, the current situation is somewhat reminiscent of a pyramid marketing scheme. The lower echelon approvers are free to make hyperbolic claims about what is allowed and what is not, which the upper echelons can easily distance themselves from, or vice versa.

 

I believe initially the approval mechanism was simply intended as a quality control measure, these days the balance seems to be moving towards secondary goals, such as securing the commercial interests of Groudspeak, Inc. Unfortunately this means that there will be more mediocre "tupperware hidden under the rock" caches which have nothing even slightly controversial about them, and less highly innovative and exciting caches which push the envelope.

Ignoring common sense is simply stirpot.gif

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment
Unfortunately this means that there will be more mediocre "tupperware hidden under the rock" caches which have nothing even slightly controversial about them, and less highly innovative and exciting caches which push the envelope.

 

I resent that, I have a tupperware hidden under the rock cache which has nothing even slightly controversial about it that gets pretty decent reviews.

 

Highly innovative and exciting caches, ah yeah.

Link to comment

So don't try to list the cache here. You could include a note in each of your caches, providing part of the co-ords for an additional cache not listed here.

As I understand it, the cache belongs to you and if you want to include a hint and a note about an additional cache that can be found on navicache or terracaching then you should be able to.

You won't be able to include that info. here. So no including it in your description of the multi, but anyone that actually finds your cache and completes the multi, would then have all the info necessary to then go to navicache or terracache and complete the multi and log the find there.

As far as listing it here goes I understand GC's point of view, I may not agree with it but I understand it and it is thier website and they have the right to list or not list anything they want on it.

As long as you're not too inflexible there should always be a "work around".

Now there;s a good answer...it says "you're welcome to go play elsewhere, but here's a way you can still play with the rest of us". Thank you.

Link to comment

I have 4 caches hidden, of those 4:

 

2 are under rocks.

1 is in between cement blocks.

1 is under some grass.

 

I might not be innovative, but I'm having fun and so are the people finding them.

 

hmmm, Minnesota eh? I'll probably be up there in a couple months. Thanks for the clues. :)

Link to comment
I repeat: I'm not objecting to the fact that linking to alternate caching sites may be disallowed, what I am objecting to the fact that this policy is not written down.
It most certainly is. Read the section in the guidelines about commercial/agenda caches.

You'll need to spell it out to me, as I have read this section several times without being able to see the relevance as currently phrased.

Several people have already spelled it out. I'll try to do it, again.

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.
Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

I'm not really sure that sinply quoting something that a person has already said they don't understand is the same as "spelling it out".

To me, "sprelling it out" means to tell it in a manner I can understand, Unless oF coure we're thinking of "spelling it out" as what adults do when they don't want the children to know what they are S-A-Y-I-N-G.

Link to comment

Why don't you just hide a Navicache and mention GC.com instead? Just reverse the rolls. See how Navicache like it.

 

Also to Write Shop Robert.... If you don't like the way we play, then yes....go play somewhere else. Personally I'm getting tired of your negativity towards this site.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

I'm not really sure that sinply quoting something that a person has already said they don't understand is the same as "spelling it out".

 

Those aren't examples of "quoting something that a person has already said" but rather they are direct quotes from the listing requirements page of www.geocaching.com .

 

Quite a difference!

Edited by TeamGumbo
Link to comment

But in all fairness, Navicache doesn't even have US maps... thats not really competition.

 

I'm with you on that one.

 

It tickles me to see people in here post about that site as if it were relevant. Why they do that is a mystery to me.

 

I think that it is silly.

I agree, most of the other places one would be told to go play can't shake a stick at GC.com, and the quantity of game and other players available here, which is why it is unrealistic to tell people that the only solution is to "go play somewhere else".(though that part doesn't "tickle" me, as I think it's quite dismissive and rude.)

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Also to Write Shop Robert.... If you don't like the way we play, then yes....go play somewhere else. Personally I'm getting tired of your negativity towards this site.

 

El Diablo

Maybe I'm misunderstanding myself here. I don't feel negativity towards the site. I'm frustrated with the way things are done, sometimes, but I love the site (it being the center of most of my liesure activities, and therefore unrealistic for me to go elsewhere and still be able to actually play the game at all). I'm not really sure what negativity towards the site you see in what I've written, especially with relevence to THIS thread (perhaps something I said in another thread was taken that way, but to bring that into this thread would be off the topic, I believe.)

 

If I've said anything nagative in this thread towards GC.com, perhaps you can point that out to me, but if such negativitity was perceived in some other thread, maybe that comment would be more appropriate there.

 

And by the way, when you're going to make such a comment directed at an individual by name, maybe you could make the small effort it takes to write their name properly. My name is in all caps. Whenever I address a player by name, I make a concerted effort to write thier name as they have done. I don't know who this "Write Shop Robert" guy is that you refer to.

 

Thanks, WRITE SHOP ROBERT

_______________________________________________________________________

Now, with respect to this topic.

 

I can see easily why GC.com would not want those links in their listed Caches(and I wouldn't even have tried to include those links), I can also see though, how some players may not be able to understand that rule as it applies to this situation.(especialy if they are not familiar with the language: american legalese).

I don't know what events transpired with regard to that listing before the point was raised in this forum, but a simple note to the hider should be able to clear up the misunderstanding.

 

So, to spell it out...

 

The reviewers and/or staff at Groundspeak feel that the links (to other Cache listing sites) in your Cache listing equal a commercial agenda.

 

The site you have linked to contains a request for donations and alse sells merchandise. While these factors may be irrelevant and un-intended in your eyes, the way Groundspeak sees it, that is a commercial listing.

 

I'd have to say that I'm in agreement with that viewpoint in this case.

 

As an example, I'd considered at one time hiding some Caches (not listed here), that would be filled with trackable tokens tracked at a seperate site. There would be a link to the tracking site, and although that site is in no way a competitor to what is offered here, I'm sure that listing would not be allowed.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

I'm not really sure that sinply quoting something that a person has already said they don't understand is the same as "spelling it out".

 

Those aren't examples of "quoting something that a person has already said" but rather they are direct quotes from the listing requirements page of www.geocaching.com .

 

Quite a difference!

That's what I said.

---------------------------------

Instead of quoting this portion on my statement..."quoting something that a person has already said"

 

Read this portion..."a person has already said they don't understand"

 

I guess that's how mis-quotes and quoting out of context can make a huge difference. I'm not being arguementative here, just clarifying what I said the first time.

==========================================

The guy already said that he doesn't understand the rule as it aplies in this case.

 

When he asks for it to be "Spelled out" that means he would like it to be explained in a manner that he can understand.

 

To simply repeat the rule back to him again will not make it any more clear to him.

 

I think though, some others have actually "spelled it out" in their further explanations, as I have also tried to do in my previous post.

===========================================

so...I'm learning to drive, and my dad's in the car with me. We come to a sign that says "yield to construction vehicles".

 

"I don't understand that sign, what does it mean?"

 

"It means yield to construction vehicles"

 

"Can you spell it out for me?"

 

"OK son, when you see a construction vehicle coming, you have to let them go first"

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment
Really? Another "agenda" and "Groundspeak is killing caching thread"?

So, you feel there are no problems in having hidden agendas, and everything that can be said about the subject has already been said?

 

Are you serious? That's like asking Coca-Cola to put the name "Pepsi" on their website. That's just plain stupid.

 

If you don't like the way Groundspeak does business, you are welcome to find somewhere else to play :)

I think it would be more like Coca-Cola putting a link to the Dairy Council. The sites in question offer no real competition to Groundspeak, so to view them as such competition as there is between Coke and Pepsi is a little exagerated, but anyway, I don't think the links should be on the listings either.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

I'm confused.

 

I went back and read the op several times.

 

Is the OP saying his mystery won't be listed because part of the cache includes a geocache that is duel listed at both GC AND NC or is he saying that part of the cache includes a geocache that is listed exclusively with NC?

 

If the first is true, I don't see what the problem is as long as the OP simply omits any reference to NC.

 

If the second is true, then why in the world would the OP even attempt to list it with GC to begin with? At what point do we start seeing a little common sense come into play?

 

Oh I forgot; common sense isn't really as common as one might think. :)

The way I read it, part of the series is listed ONLY at the other site.

 

I agree, it should just be one or the other. As far as I understood, dual listings would not be allowed either, under the portion that discourages desiminating the information contained on the site to nonregistered users.

 

I can't find where that's written, but I'm fairly sure I saw it in all that mumbo jumbo somewhere a long time ago.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment
The other site does not make you pay to play, but it does solicit donations. There is a solicitation link right on main page. There is also a link to a sales area for their merchandise linked on the main page as well. Reviewers are not able to make the decision regarding the issue of cache pages that link to commercial web sites. This is stated in the guidelines you linked and is not "unwritten" as you allege. I understand that your intent is most likely not intentional, but the guideline states:
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.

Groundspeak makes this decision. I would suggest that you write to appeals@geocaching.com for resolution on this issue. As you can see in the topic linked above, it will not be solved in a forum topic.

 

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.

Link to comment

Was this reply :

 

The other site does not make you pay to play, but it does solicit donations. There is a solicitation link right on main page. There is also a link to a sales area for their merchandise linked on the main page as well. Reviewers are not able to make the decision regarding the issue of cache pages that link to commercial web sites. This is stated in the guidelines you linked and is not "unwritten" as you allege. I understand that your intent is most likely not intentional, but the guideline states:
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.

Groundspeak makes this decision. I would suggest that you write to appeals@geocaching.com for resolution on this issue. As you can see in the topic linked above, it will not be solved in a forum topic.

 

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.

 

in reference to this statement ?: "I can't find where that's written, but I'm fairly sure I saw it in all that mumbo jumbo somewhere a long time ago."

 

That statement was refering to the previous line : "As far as I understood, dual listings would not be allowed either, under the portion that discourages desiminating the information contained on the site to nonregistered users."

 

But anyway, what you've written goes a lot further to actually "spell it out" than those who just quote the rule again

 

I hope we're not reaching a point where we can each actually understand what the other is saying, where's the fun in that?

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

That's what I said.

 

My apologies (if that is what you are expecting...if not, I retract my apologies).

 

B)

 

I am bilingual...I *generally* understand the nuances of two languages, the subtle shadings, the hints and nudges and winks of meaning that can sometimes conspire to topple the mightiest kingdoms or the lowliest pub arguments, but in this case (and many others, both here and in the "real" world) people seem to gravitate to some perceived grievance or obtuseness that, were the tables turned, they would lift their voicesin complaint in a hue and cry that would rend the very foundations of heaven.

 

I think.

 

:mellow::):)

 

Anyway.

 

If folks can't read the rules and understand them, p'raps they shouldn't rail against them so...eh?

Link to comment

That's what I said.

 

My apologies (if that is what you are expecting...if not, I retract my apologies).

 

B)

 

I am bilingual...I *generally* understand the nuances of two languages, the subtle shadings, the hints and nudges and winks of meaning that can sometimes conspire to topple the mightiest kingdoms or the lowliest pub arguments, but in this case (and many others, both here and in the "real" world) people seem to gravitate to some perceived grievance or obtuseness that, were the tables turned, they would lift their voicesin complaint in a hue and cry that would rend the very foundations of heaven.

 

I think.

 

:mellow::):)

 

Anyway.

 

If folks can't read the rules and understand them, p'raps they shouldn't rail against them so...eh?

Perhaps that is true. Sometimes it is hard not to "rail" when you are very confused and frustrated.

 

No apology needed, by the way.

 

HaHa, I didn't say the sky was "blue", I said the sky was "cool", but I can see how I might be misunderstood.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

Why don't you just hide a Navicache and mention GC.com instead? Just reverse the rolls. See how Navicache like it.

I thought the same thing. However, with the limited amount of traffic navicache seems to get, ANY cache listing, even one pimping GC.com, might be better then no cache listing. :)

 

[i think it would be more like Coca-Cola putting a link to the Dairy Council. The sites in question offer no real competition to Groundspeak, so to view them as such competition as there is between Coke and Pepsi is a little exagerated, but anyway, I don't think the links should be on the listings either.

That's not quite right either. Milk is a different product. Coke and Pepsi sell the same product (cola). Geocaching.com and Navicache.com "sell" the same product too (geocache listings). I guess the best comparison might be Coca Cola vs a small, regional product like Empire Cola.

emp_cola_med.jpg

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

I got sick of reading this thread before I was half way through.

 

I will say that I wish that the "no commercial cache" thing did not exist. I do not think it causes people to place boring caches but it does eliminate a lot of great cache sites and ideas!

 

That being said I did check out terracaching.com to see what they are up to and could not help but notice their "Top Referrers " list on the right of the page. Look for your self, geocaching.com's link is there :):)B):mellow:

 

I understand why they do not want to provide free advertising for a competitor... When I worked at Menards up in Nebraska we would listen to the Husker football games over the P.A. system instead of the usual music. Well the head honchos at Menards stopped that when Lowes started advertising during the game! :unsure:

Link to comment

But in all fairness, Navicache doesn't even have US maps... thats not really competition.

 

I'm with you on that one.

 

It tickles me to see people in here post about that site as if it were relevant. Why they do that is a mystery to me.

 

I think that it is silly.

I agree, most of the other places one would be told to go play can't shake a stick at GC.com, and the quantity of game and other players available here, which is why it is unrealistic to tell people that the only solution is to "go play somewhere else".(though that part doesn't "tickle" me, as I think it's quite dismissive and rude.)

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Also to Write Shop Robert.... If you don't like the way we play, then yes....go play somewhere else. Personally I'm getting tired of your negativity towards this site.

 

El Diablo

Maybe I'm misunderstanding myself here. I don't feel negativity towards the site. I'm frustrated with the way things are done, sometimes, but I love the site (it being the center of most of my liesure activities, and therefore unrealistic for me to go elsewhere and still be able to actually play the game at all). I'm not really sure what negativity towards the site you see in what I've written, especially with relevence to THIS thread (perhaps something I said in another thread was taken that way, but to bring that into this thread would be off the topic, I believe.)

 

If I've said anything nagative in this thread towards GC.com, perhaps you can point that out to me, but if such negativitity was perceived in some other thread, maybe that comment would be more appropriate there.

 

And by the way, when you're going to make such a comment directed at an individual by name, maybe you could make the small effort it takes to write their name properly. My name is in all caps. Whenever I address a player by name, I make a concerted effort to write thier name as they have done. I don't know who this "Write Shop Robert" guy is that you refer to.

 

Thanks, WRITE SHOP ROBERT

_______________________________________________________________________

Now, with respect to this topic.

 

I can see easily why GC.com would not want those links in their listed Caches(and I wouldn't even have tried to include those links), I can also see though, how some players may not be able to understand that rule as it applies to this situation.(especialy if they are not familiar with the language: american legalese).

I don't know what events transpired with regard to that listing before the point was raised in this forum, but a simple note to the hider should be able to clear up the misunderstanding.

 

So, to spell it out...

 

The reviewers and/or staff at Groundspeak feel that the links (to other Cache listing sites) in your Cache listing equal a commercial agenda.

 

The site you have linked to contains a request for donations and alse sells merchandise. While these factors may be irrelevant and un-intended in your eyes, the way Groundspeak sees it, that is a commercial listing.

 

I'd have to say that I'm in agreement with that viewpoint in this case.

 

As an example, I'd considered at one time hiding some Caches (not listed here), that would be filled with trackable tokens tracked at a seperate site. There would be a link to the tracking site, and although that site is in no way a competitor to what is offered here, I'm sure that listing would not be allowed.

 

"..doesn't "tickle" me, as I think it's quite dismissive and rude"

 

Well said. Thanks.

Link to comment

Does the OP also make a habit of going into restaurants and taking a picnic out of a bag which he brought in, then when asked to leave by the waiter, claiming that they are all victim's of the management's evil pyramid marketing scheme?

 

Movie Theaters, I'll bring something. Can't afford that expensive stuff they sell. If it was merely conveniece store overpriced I'd buy there..

Fast food, joints if I have a soda I'll bring it in rather than buy a second soda when I order.

 

I don't get asked to leave, but then I'm not banking on the table approvers door asking if my seating arrangement meets the guidelines either.

Link to comment

I got sick of reading this thread before I was half way through.

 

I will say that I wish that the "no commercial cache" thing did not exist. I do not think it causes people to place boring caches but it does eliminate a lot of great cache sites and ideas!

 

That being said I did check out terracaching.com to see what they are up to and could not help but notice their "Top Referrers " list on the right of the page. Look for your self, geocaching.com's link is there :P:mad::D:P

 

I understand why they do not want to provide free advertising for a competitor... When I worked at Menards up in Nebraska we would listen to the Husker football games over the P.A. system instead of the usual music. Well the head honchos at Menards stopped that when Lowes started advertising during the game! :D

I've always thought it funny when I'm in a store and the radio is playing commercials for the competition.

Link to comment

Does the OP also make a habit of going into restaurants and taking a picnic out of a bag which he brought in, then when asked to leave by the waiter, claiming that they are all victim's of the management's evil pyramid marketing scheme?

I think that is a slight exageration of what the OP said they were trying to do. The way I read their post would be more like walking into BurgerKing to place an order, and having a McDonald's bag in yout hand. Or if you want to go further, Like going into one of those places to eat their food, but bringing in a milkshake from BR.

 

Besides that point, the habits of the OP are not the topic at hand, the topic at hand is the clarity and consistancy of the rules, I think.

Link to comment

Can we agree that there is really no feasible way to write every possible 'rule'?

 

Can we also agree that the volunteers do their best to interpret the 'rules' as they see them and enforce them as such?

 

Lastly, can we then agree that if the submitter feels the reviewer (unpaid volunteer) did not enforce the 'rules' correctly, that there is an appeal process that can be submitted for final review?

 

Folks, I hope it doesn't come to the point where we are forced to purchase, sign and have notarized a 1500 page hardcover book of 'rules'. (Not that it would ever happen, just saying.)

 

I can appreciate hard work put into a cache, but at some point common sense meets responsibility and accountability.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment

Can we agree that there is really no feasible way to write every possible 'rule'?

 

Can we also agree that the volunteers do their best to interpret the 'rules' as they see them and enforce them as such?

 

Lastly, can we then agree that if the submitter feels the reviewer (unpaid volunteer) did not enforce the 'rules' correctly, that there is an appeal process that can be submitted for final review?

 

Folks, I hope it doesn't come to the point where we are forced to purchase, sign and have notarized a 1500 page hardcover book of 'rules'. (Not that it would ever happen, just saying.)

 

I can appreciate hard work put into a cache, but at some point common sense meets responsibility and accountability.

Well gosh... Wish I said that.

Link to comment

Can we agree that there is really no feasible way to write every possible 'rule'?

 

Can we also agree that the volunteers do their best to interpret the 'rules' as they see them and enforce them as such?

 

Lastly, can we then agree that if the submitter feels the reviewer (unpaid volunteer) did not enforce the 'rules' correctly, that there is an appeal process that can be submitted for final review?

 

Yes.

 

Yes.

 

Yes.

Link to comment

The OP already exhausted the other appeal routes. Both the reviewer group as a whole, and Groundspeak, said thumbs down to promoting a competing geocache listing site in a cache listing.

 

Sheesh, just post the coords for the event. People come, people have fun.

Link to comment

All I know is navicache is definitely getting their advertising dollar's worth in this thread :mad:

 

Heck I even signed up just to see what it was about... a whopping 6 caches within a 35 mile radius.

 

Sounds like we are thinking along the same lines. :P

 

Looks like that other side has already received a lot of free advertising from this thread.

 

As far as a written rule I think that as a society in general we have to many written rules when common sense is the sensible answer.

 

If they had to write a rule for every possible common sense situation there would be 800 pages of rules. It's common sense that a site wouldn't want their site advertising someone in the same line of business.

 

I don't need a written rule saying "don't place broken glass, razor blades, and rat poison in a geocache." It's just common sense.

Link to comment
I'm not objecting to the fact that linking to alternate caching sites may be disallowed, what I am objecting to the fact that this policy is not written down.

Perhaps you should actually read the guidelines, rather than simply clicking the box claiming that you read them.

Then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Link to comment
I'm not objecting to the fact that linking to alternate caching sites may be disallowed, what I am objecting to the fact that this policy is not written down.

Perhaps you should actually read the guidelines, rather than simply clicking the box claiming that you read them.

Then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Not only did he not read them, but what he is proposing is that they add more verbiage to the existing guidelines, so that more people would be less likely to read them... :mad:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I do like the Burger King - McDonalds analogy. One thing people forget on that one is that there is no sign on the door that says to not bring food in from another place. On this site, there is a sign on the door that says "No commercial links please without permission". The person checked a box saying they had read the sign and then walked through the door ignoring the sign, in effect, using the analogy given.

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