How did this get approved?

[+LyleVB]

I know some will think I'm jerk for bringing this up, but as I was going through some caches I plan to do this weekend, I can across a cache that was just approved in 1/18/09. The cache is Drivers ed (GC1KX1Z) (I'm not sure how to make this a link.)

 

Well anyway, it says right in the description "To get credit for this cache you need to post a picture of yourself and your vehicle standing on the south side of the creek. There is no actual cache (the journey is the cache). "

 

Isn't this a virtual that have been banned for some time now?

[+Keruso]

does it have a ? near the name?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Nope. It's listed as a Traditional. Perhaps the cache owner edited the cache page after it was published.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Very strange. Looks like it was listed as a traditional cache, but there is no container size indicated, and the cache listing page does clearly state that there is no cache container involved, and rather, only a virtual-type photo is needed. Sounds like a virtual, looks like a virtual, walks like a virtual, talks like a virtual, smells like a virtual. Very odd... ...I must go Twitter about this immediately.

[+Keruso]

virtuals and locationless caches have been banned for quite some time now. maybe this dude doesn't know that? if it's listed as a traditional cache, there MUST be a cache there. if he wants you to take a pic of yourself and your car, thats an ALR and must be a mystery cache

[Trinity's Crew]

I know some will think I'm jerk for bringing this up, but as I was going through some caches I plan to do this weekend, I can across a cache that was just approved in 1/18/09. The cache is Drivers ed (GC1KX1Z) (I'm not sure how to make this a link.)

 

Well anyway, it says right in the description "To get credit for this cache you need to post a picture of yourself and your vehicle standing on the south side of the creek. There is no actual cache (the journey is the cache). "

 

Isn't this a virtual that have been banned for some time now?

Link

 

Add me to the "some" list. Yeah, it looks like a virt, walks like a virt, and quacks like a virt. Must be a virt. I just don't understand why we have to get bent over it. Either it slipped through or the owner modified the cache page after it was published. Either way it isn't bothering me. Why does it bother you?

Edited January 24, 2009 by Trinity's Crew

[+mtn-man]

I'm sure that won't last much longer. Mistakes happen. I've done it. Perhaps the page was edited after listing.

[+Sioneva]

Very strange. Looks like it was listed as a traditional cache, but there is no container size indicated, and the cache listing page does clearly state that there is no cache container involved, and rather, only a virtual-type photo is needed. Sounds like a virtual, looks like a virtual, walks like a virtual, talks like a virtual, smells like a virtual. Very odd... ...I must go Twitter about this immediately.

 

Lemme go get my slingshot...

[+mtn-man]

Why does it bother you?

Because it is against the guidelines.

[Trinity's Crew]

Why does it bother you?

Because it is against the guidelines.

Yeah, I get that. So email the owner or the reviewer. Add an SBA to the cache page if it offends your sensibilities. Heck email Jeremy if it floats your boat, but I don't think it has to be dragged into the forums. Just my humble opinion. That and $1.81 will get you a cup of coffee at Panera Bread.

 

Edit to add:Add an SBA to the cache page if it offends your sensibilities

Edited January 24, 2009 by Trinity's Crew

[+Keruso]

looks like they started in October and have only found 53 caches and placed about 14. anyone else see a discrepency here?

[+clan_Barron]

looks like they started in October and have only found 53 caches and placed about 14. anyone else see a discrepency here?

Yeah! They're not hiding enough caches. Ratio should be 1:1

 

Hey some people get more of a kick from hiding than finding, nothing wrong with that.

[+mtn-man]

Why does it bother you?

Because it is against the guidelines.

Yeah, I get that. So email the owner or the reviewer. Add an SBA to the cache page if it offends your sensibilities. Heck email Jeremy if it floats your boat, but I don't think it has to be dragged into the forums. Just my humble opinion. That and $1.81 will get you a cup of coffee at Panera Bread.

 

Edit to add:Add an SBA to the cache page if it offends your sensibilities

The community is its own best final checker I suppose. This isn't the first topic of this type and probably won't be the last. If they offend you so much, you should steer clear of these types of topics probably.

[+mfamilee]

I know some will think I'm jerk for bringing this up, but as I was going through some caches I plan to do this weekend, I can across a cache that was just approved in 1/18/09. The cache is Drivers ed (GC1KX1Z) (I'm not sure how to make this a link.)

 

Well anyway, it says right in the description "To get credit for this cache you need to post a picture of yourself and your vehicle standing on the south side of the creek. There is no actual cache (the journey is the cache). "

 

Isn't this a virtual that have been banned for some time now?

Hi LyleVB.

We are in your area and had also added this cache in question to our list for this weekend. We too were wondering when we read the description, but we still planned on going there. I just looked at the listing now and it appears the cache is already taken down. I guess we can delete that one off the list.

[Mr.Yuck]

Very strange. Looks like it was listed as a traditional cache, but there is no container size indicated, and the cache listing page does clearly state that there is no cache container involved, and rather, only a virtual-type photo is needed. Sounds like a virtual, looks like a virtual, walks like a virtual, talks like a virtual, smells like a virtual. Very odd... ...I must go Twitter about this immediately.

 

Lemme go get my slingshot...

 

I'll meet you with my torch and pitchfork.

 

Yeah, I'd never go to the forums with it. I probably wouldn't even "report" it, if it happened in my area. That's probably just me though.

 

I'd say there's a better chance of me being struck by lightning as I type this, then there is that this cache page wasn't edited after approval.

 

EDIT: doesn't matter, already retracted.

Edited January 24, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Star*Hopper]

looks like they started in October and have only found 53 caches and placed about 14. anyone else see a discrepency here?

Yes. Yes I do. Namely, .......WHAT!?!?!??!?!!!!!

[+undertree]

I'm a rule guy. I like that the OP brought this here. Now folks will know that this is wrong and that this is not something that is allowed. Many folks will just try anything, they don't care that the cache is not allowed.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Very strange. Looks like it was listed as a traditional cache, but there is no container size indicated, and the cache listing page does clearly state that there is no cache container involved, and rather, only a virtual-type photo is needed. Sounds like a virtual, looks like a virtual, walks like a virtual, talks like a virtual, smells like a virtual. Very odd... ...I must go Twitter about this immediately.

How can you Twitter, I thought there was a character limit there??

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I know some will think I'm jerk for bringing this up, but as I was going through some caches I plan to do this weekend, I can across a cache that was just approved in 1/18/09. The cache is Drivers ed (GC1KX1Z) (I'm not sure how to make this a link.)

 

Well anyway, it says right in the description "To get credit for this cache you need to post a picture of yourself and your vehicle standing on the south side of the creek. There is no actual cache (the journey is the cache). "

 

Isn't this a virtual that have been banned for some time now?

Hi LyleVB.

We are in your area and had also added this cache in question to our list for this weekend. We too were wondering when we read the description, but we still planned on going there. I just looked at the listing now and it appears the cache is already taken down. I guess we can delete that one off the list.

No need...If you still want to do it, then do it. If i'm not mistaken, you can still log a find on archived Caches. Even if not, or if it was deleted altogether, just for fun you could send the photo to the owner.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I know some will think I'm jerk for bringing this up, but as I was going through some caches I plan to do this weekend, I can across a cache that was just approved in 1/18/09. The cache is Drivers ed (GC1KX1Z) (I'm not sure how to make this a link.)

 

Well anyway, it says right in the description "To get credit for this cache you need to post a picture of yourself and your vehicle standing on the south side of the creek. There is no actual cache (the journey is the cache). "

 

Isn't this a virtual that have been banned for some time now?

Hi LyleVB.

We are in your area and had also added this cache in question to our list for this weekend. We too were wondering when we read the description, but we still planned on going there. I just looked at the listing now and it appears the cache is already taken down. I guess we can delete that one off the list.

No need...If you still want to do it, then do it. If i'm not mistaken, you can still log a find on archived Caches. Even if not, or if it was deleted altogether, just for fun you could send the photo to the owner.

It looks like it has been pulled, trying the link the cache is no longer active

[+Parabola]

I know some will think I'm jerk for bringing this up, but as I was going through some caches I plan to do this weekend, I can across a cache that was just approved in 1/18/09. The cache is Drivers ed (GC1KX1Z) (I'm not sure how to make this a link.)

 

Well anyway, it says right in the description "To get credit for this cache you need to post a picture of yourself and your vehicle standing on the south side of the creek. There is no actual cache (the journey is the cache). "

 

Isn't this a virtual that have been banned for some time now?

Hey Lyle,

 

I tried to look up the listing and it says that number hasn't been published yet. I don't know if they shut it down all ready or not. But I've never seen TPTB wipe out a whole listing. (not to say it hasn't or won't happen. I would say yup it's a virtual if there is no logbook to sign. If it was an ALR (additional logging requirement) then they should have made it a mystery cache. But no logbook or logsheet to sign makes it a virtual, and nope new one's are agaist guidelines. Except for an Earthcache which have some different rule's attached.

 

I'm kind of wondering what side of the border it was on?

[+mfamilee]

I'm kind of wondering what side of the border it was on?

 

It was on the IL side... down south between Galesburg & Peoria off of Interstate 74.

[+briansnat]

I'd say there's a better chance of me being struck by lightning as I type this, then there is that this cache page wasn't edited after approval.

 

Reviewer Jones is a 4 time winner of the Reviewer of the Year award, a member of the Cache Reviewers Hall of Fame, selected by the Cache Reviewers Association Periodical magazine as one of the top 10 reviewers in the world, a National Merit Reviewer, president of the International Association of Cache Reviewers and one of only 5 reviewers selected to be a member of the US National Reviewer Team to be sent to Sarajevo next summer for the Cache Review Olympics.

 

Even then, it is possible that he made a mistake. It happens to the best of them. Heck, Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times and even though Reviewer Jones has been referred to by some as the Babe Ruth of reviewers, his track record is actually far better than The Bambino's.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Very strange. Looks like it was listed as a traditional cache, but there is no container size indicated, and the cache listing page does clearly state that there is no cache container involved, and rather, only a virtual-type photo is needed. Sounds like a virtual, looks like a virtual, walks like a virtual, talks like a virtual, smells like a virtual. Very odd... ...I must go Twitter about this immediately.

 

Lemme go get my slingshot...

ZOMG! Hot9eleventy!! I must go send updates to Twitter, Britekite, Jaiku, Kwippy, Plurk, Pixelpipe, Facebook and Myspace about this slingshot development immediately!

 

 

.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Why does it bother you?

Because it is against the guidelines.

Yeah, I get that. So email the owner or the reviewer. Add an SBA to the cache page if it offends your sensibilities. Heck email Jeremy if it floats your boat, but I don't think it has to be dragged into the forums. Just my humble opinion. That and $1.81 will get you a cup of coffee at Panera Bread.

 

Edit to add:Add an SBA to the cache page if it offends your sensibilities

The community is its own best final checker I suppose. This isn't the first topic of this type and probably won't be the last. If they offend you so much, you should steer clear of these types of topics probably.

I personally am very glad that the OP raised this issue, and that they chose to raise it here on the forum.

 

It does seem like the cache owner must have edited the listing page after publication.

 

Bizarre! ...quite bizarre! Personally, and this is just my own personal prejudices speaking, since I tend to abhor virtual caches (no, I do not mind webcam caches so long as there is a container and a logbook and it is listed as an ALR cache) I am glad that the matter was raised so quickly and dealt with so quickly. I would hate to see virtuals sneak back onto this site again, for it that happened, it might provoke me to lead a Holy War against virtuals, which are Satanic influences, and against the unwashed Satanic heathens who try to place them.

 

.

[+Rockin Roddy]

All gone now, no more to worry about!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

All gone now, no more to worry about!

But, allow me to mention that we must remain ever-vigilant in protecting the purity of our sport against contamination by virtual caches, which are all part of a Satanic plot to pollute our precious bodily fluids and steal our souls!

[+koneko]

I'd say there's a better chance of me being struck by lightning as I type this, then there is that this cache page wasn't edited after approval.

 

Reviewer Jones is a 4 time winner of the Reviewer of the Year award, a member of the Cache Reviewers Hall of Fame, selected by the Cache Reviewers Association Periodical magazine as one of the top 10 reviewers in the world, a National Merit Reviewer, president of the International Association of Cache Reviewers and one of only 5 reviewers selected to be a member of the US National Reviewer Team to be sent to Sarajevo next summer for the Cache Review Olympics.

 

Even then, it is possible that he made a mistake. It happens to the best of them. Heck, Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times and even though Reviewer Jones has been referred to by some as the Babe Ruth of reviewers, his track record is actually far better than The Bambino's.

 

boy does that give new meaning to the "curse of the Bambino!"

[+Reviewer Jones]

I'd say there's a better chance of me being struck by lightning as I type this, then there is that this cache page wasn't edited after approval.

 

Reviewer Jones is a 4 time winner of the Reviewer of the Year award, a member of the Cache Reviewers Hall of Fame, selected by the Cache Reviewers Association Periodical magazine as one of the top 10 reviewers in the world, a National Merit Reviewer, president of the International Association of Cache Reviewers and one of only 5 reviewers selected to be a member of the US National Reviewer Team to be sent to Sarajevo next summer for the Cache Review Olympics.

 

Even then, it is possible that he made a mistake. It happens to the best of them. Heck, Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times and even though Reviewer Jones has been referred to by some as the Babe Ruth of reviewers, his track record is actually far better than The Bambino's.

 

boy does that give new meaning to the "curse of the Bambino!"

 

I'm afraid Briansnat hit on the problem in his post.

 

Much like Babe Ruth, I do a lot of charity work. Mostly for the "Make a Stupid Wish Foundation." Of course, it's court ordered...apparently you're only allowed to take ONE penny from those cups at the gas station. Sigh....like I can buy anything with ONE penny.

 

Anywho, I was visiting with a very sick little boy in a hospital a couple weeks ago and he asked me if I could publish just one more virtual cache...sorta hit it out of the park for him. I found this one and gave it the green light. Little Timmy's dream was fulfilled, so I guess it's time to put this one to bed.

 

And I know somewhere up there Little Timmy is looking down on us all and thinking, "Don't they have better things to do with their time?" No, Timmy...we don't....we sure don't.

[+CYBret]

You, my friend, are a SAINT. A god among men (but with a little "g" so as to avoid blasphemy and the boils and rivers of blood that often accompany it).

[+wimseyguy]

Don't forget the frog and locust plagues.

 

There's an ol' timey corner grocery/gas station I frequent whenever I'm caching southeast of my home range that I just happened to stop by yesterday for some cache trail refreshments. The penny jar in front of the register says: need a penny take a penny, need three-get a job!

[GOF and Bacall]

Don't forget the frog and locust plagues.

 

There's an ol' timey corner grocery/gas station I frequent whenever I'm caching southeast of my home range that I just happened to stop by yesterday for some cache trail refreshments. The penny jar in front of the register says: need a penny take a penny, need three-get a job!

 

Whenever I see this one, or one of the variations, I take the opportunity to mess with people by tossing in a nickle.

[Team Misguided]

I'd say there's a better chance of me being struck by lightning as I type this, then there is that this cache page wasn't edited after approval.

 

Reviewer Jones is a 4 time winner of the Reviewer of the Year award, a member of the Cache Reviewers Hall of Fame, selected by the Cache Reviewers Association Periodical magazine as one of the top 10 reviewers in the world, a National Merit Reviewer, president of the International Association of Cache Reviewers and one of only 5 reviewers selected to be a member of the US National Reviewer Team to be sent to Sarajevo next summer for the Cache Review Olympics.

 

Even then, it is possible that he made a mistake. It happens to the best of them. Heck, Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times and even though Reviewer Jones has been referred to by some as the Babe Ruth of reviewers, his track record is actually far better than The Bambino's.

 

You forgot first runner up in the Mr. Cache Reviewer Pageant. Not even Reviewer Jones can de-throne the Puppymonster.

[GOF and Bacall]

I'd say there's a better chance of me being struck by lightning as I type this, then there is that this cache page wasn't edited after approval.

 

Reviewer Jones is a 4 time winner of the Reviewer of the Year award, a member of the Cache Reviewers Hall of Fame, selected by the Cache Reviewers Association Periodical magazine as one of the top 10 reviewers in the world, a National Merit Reviewer, president of the International Association of Cache Reviewers and one of only 5 reviewers selected to be a member of the US National Reviewer Team to be sent to Sarajevo next summer for the Cache Review Olympics.

 

Even then, it is possible that he made a mistake. It happens to the best of them. Heck, Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times and even though Reviewer Jones has been referred to by some as the Babe Ruth of reviewers, his track record is actually far better than The Bambino's.

 

You forgot first runner up in the Mr. Cache Reviewer Pageant. Not even Reviewer Jones can de-throne the Puppymonster.

 

Yeah, he lost it in the swimsuit competition. Should have gone with the one piece.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

Yeah, I get that. So email the owner or the reviewer. Add an SBA to the cache page if it offends your sensibilities. Heck email Jeremy if it floats your boat, but I don't think it has to be dragged into the forums. Just my humble opinion. That and $1.81 will get you a cup of coffee at Panera Bread.

 

Edit to add:Add an SBA to the cache page if it offends your sensibilities

 

You know I've never been to Panera Bread. Are they any good? What kind of food do they serve, anyway?

 

I agree that emailing the reviewer would be the first thing to do since it's a question about whether the cache is compliant or not. The reviewer can take it from there so a SBA isn't even necessary.

 

But I'm not able to look at the cache, which means that it's been pulled so the CO can fix the problem.

[+Reviewer Jones]

Yeah, he lost it in the swimsuit competition. Should have gone with the one piece.

 

I did wear one piece...just the wrong piece.

[+hukilaulau]

But I've never seen TPTB wipe out a whole listing.

Yep, it's been done. Usually for blatant violation of the guidelines, and when it appears that the listing page has been altered after the cache was approved. Generally the only way a reviewer will know this is if someone points it out.

Count me in the group that totally approves of the OP bringing this up.

[+NotThePainter]

oh please, somebody do whatever they have to do to get this thread pinned, this has got to be the funniest forum thread here in years.

 

I think I'll go hide a micro on Timmy's grave, he would have wanted it.

[+TrailGators]

I think I'll go hide a micro on Timmy's grave, he would have wanted it.

Poor Tiny Tim...

[+Vater_Araignee]

oh please, somebody do whatever they have to do to get this thread pinned, this has got to be the funniest forum thread here in years.

 

I think I'll go hide a micro on Timmy's grave, he would have wanted it.

That just mean, kids hate micros.

[Trinity's Crew]

Why does it bother you?

Because it is against the guidelines.

Yeah, I get that. So email the owner or the reviewer. Add an SBA to the cache page if it offends your sensibilities. Heck email Jeremy if it floats your boat, but I don't think it has to be dragged into the forums. Just my humble opinion. That and $1.81 will get you a cup of coffee at Panera Bread.

 

Edit to add:Add an SBA to the cache page if it offends your sensibilities

The community is its own best final checker I suppose. This isn't the first topic of this type and probably won't be the last. If they offend you so much, you should steer clear of these types of topics probably.

They don't offend me. I was stating my opinion. I thought that was the reason we started threads in this forum. In my opinion there were several better ways to handle the situation. Apparently in your opinion this course of action as a first option was A-ok. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, or at least I will.

[+flask]

Don't forget the frog and locust plagues.

 

 

while i was in montreal last fall i saw a FABULOUS biblical plagues playset. blood, frogs, lice, the whole deal.

 

 

i wish i was making this up.

[Keystone]

Sounds like a nice cache series, flask.

 

I bet you Reviewer Jones would publish it.

[+Parabola]

I'd say there's a better chance of me being struck by lightning as I type this, then there is that this cache page wasn't edited after approval.

 

Reviewer Jones is a 4 time winner of the Reviewer of the Year award, a member of the Cache Reviewers Hall of Fame, selected by the Cache Reviewers Association Periodical magazine as one of the top 10 reviewers in the world, a National Merit Reviewer, president of the International Association of Cache Reviewers and one of only 5 reviewers selected to be a member of the US National Reviewer Team to be sent to Sarajevo next summer for the Cache Review Olympics.

 

Even then, it is possible that he made a mistake. It happens to the best of them. Heck, Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times and even though Reviewer Jones has been referred to by some as the Babe Ruth of reviewers, his track record is actually far better than The Bambino's.

 

I was just wondering who put it out, not who reviewed it. What side of the border would have given more of an idea who placed it. I mostly was wondering if a newer cacher had placed it or if and experienced one did. I wasn't implying any fault on the reviewer. If it was a newer cacher that was kind of in my area, I'd be happy to help them with some advice on making a cache that fit the guidelines. But since the whole cache has now been washed away, I can't find out who placed it and try to offer any help to the cacher if it's a noob.

 

Reviewer Jones, does a really great job in the area he covers. He always very prompt to review a cache and really helpful when trying to work one out to fit guideline's. I've found quite a few that he's reviewed and they has some really good and fun cache's in that area and I wouldn't question his judgement. In fact I remember him shutting one down that some of the area cacher's had trashed the place looking for a cache and only would make it active again when the cacher's that trashed the place went and fixed what they all tore up. A very good call in my book and that says a lot about him having good judgement when a problem does arise.

 

My guess is yes the cache page was changed after it was given the green light. Sorry, if anyone felt my post imply fault on the reviewer but that wasn't my intention.

 

I just thought if it's a noobie and they are close to me, I could send them a e-mail and offer to help them if they don't fully understand the guidelines. (which obviously they are having problem's with) Or I could refer them to a couple of friend's down in that area that would gladly help them place a cache that met the guidelines.

[+LyleVB]

Okay, what i'm getting from the discussion is I should go to the reviewer first if I have a question. Though I have done that before with a different reviewer and it didn't really go anywhere, but I shouldn't let that stop me.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

There's nothing wrong with bringing something like this to the forums.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Okay, what i'm getting from the discussion is I should go to the reviewer first if I have a question. Though I have done that before with a different reviewer and it didn't really go anywhere, but I shouldn't let that stop me.

Not at all. I, along with a number of other posters, feel strongly that you did a perfectly acceptable and laudable thing in raising this issue here. You did nothing wrong, and, in fact, you rendered a good service to the geo community.

[GOF and Bacall]

Personally I prefer not to get locked into specific examples unless necessary. If you start a thread with a generic description of the situation you wish to discuss you can always add the specific details later if needed.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Thank you for doing the needful.

[+Parabola]

Okay, what i'm getting from the discussion is I should go to the reviewer first if I have a question. Though I have done that before with a different reviewer and it didn't really go anywhere, but I shouldn't let that stop me.

Not a thing wrong with bring it here. I think the only complant's would be that you exposed the cache and didn't just ask about it in general, but I don't really see a problem with it.