Jump to content

First cache hide... what to do about difficult reviewers?


Followers 6

Recommended Posts

...Thanks for any feedback...

 

When I've bumped into the distance guideline I ask myself if the cache is worthy or just another cache. If you can move it and it's about the same, it's just another cache.

 

When the answer is yes I list it anyway. Just on another site.

 

Twice it's been yes. The first time 528' (161m) was a parking lot. My distance was a rock face where you climb to the top and the cache is there. Rock face. Parking lot. Easy decision.

 

The next time 300' one way was a roadside cache. 300' the other way was a cache behind the dog pound. I found a spot in a park where you have to climb up a crack in the rocks. When you are on top you are in a natural depression and can't be seen by anyone. The crack itself is hidden by trees from traffic and most park goers. This one was a very nice urban cache location. Not only was the cache worthy, it's one that really should exist.

 

Reviewers only have a little bit of flexability in the guidelines. Owners have to adapt when needed.

Link to comment
feeling like you've just landed in communist germany in 1942 ;-)

 

Keep making comments like this and watch the little bit of support you still might have in this discussion go away really really fast. BTW the Communists were across the border in Germany. It was the Nazis who ruled Germany. You also might want to look up the meaning of Godwin's Law while you are considering your next move.

 

Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

 

C'mon now, I can't be the only one who immediately thought of that, am I? ;)

 

I'll still give him the little bit of support though. I understand his frustration, being from New Zealand, where saturation is not a problen. Heck it might never be in that Nation. It's also probably pretty hard to come to grips with the whole apparent "some guidelines are rules, but most of them are just guidelines" thing.

Link to comment
I hope the reviewers would see the value of my cache, and I hoped someone would be able to stretch the guidelines enough to let it be approved. Yes, I totally admit that it does not satisfy the saturation guidelines, but I was hoping that someone would see the tradeoff in bringing an educational, historical, interactive (and in my opinion exciting) cache into the area.

 

I've felt the same way about my ideas. There have been numerous times where I thought I found a great spot for a cache only to run into the .1 mile rule. Here is how I dealt with it. I said "darn!", then found another place for my cache.

 

I ran into a situation recently where another geocacher was planning an elaborate challenge series. To do it he needed the easternmost point in the state for one of his caches. It turned out that my cache blocked his and threatened his idea. He mentioned it to me and I offered to archive, or move my cache to accommodate his.

 

Ya know what happened? He didn't think it was right to aske me to move my cache, so he simply tweaked his idea. Now that's a mature way of handling things.

Shhh! We can't allow logic and maturity to spread, this threatens the entire forum! ;)

 

'My cache is special and shouldn't have to fit no silly guideline' is a much better way to keep a forum well-attended.

 

To the OP, your best bet is always to deal directly with your Reviewer and, if still not satisfied, Groundspeak. Once you bring it to a public forum and especially if you criticize the Reviewer, you will get piled on with opinions that support the Reviewer's decision and there's little chance that the original decision will be changed. Reviewers will almost always defend other Reviewers in public, that's just human nature. Much more flexibility can be found in private conversations.

Link to comment

Very interesting thread, and I feel for ya! Your cache sounds like a fun one and I was rootin' for you to get an exception until, in one of your replies, you acknowledged that it would be possible to "scramble up the cliff" from the tunnel to the other cache. That's a lot different than an impenatrable barrier. That alone could cause an unwelcome erosion trail. I hope you get it fixed 'cuz if I ever get to NZ that's a cache that would be on my "must do" list!

Link to comment

Thanks hukilaulau. I guess it comes down to how you define impenetrable. I can cross a river in a canoe, scale a wall with a rope, and climb a cliff by climbing up tree roots and the like. Nothings really impenetrable, and it really only refers to the Accidental Discovery part of the Saturation Guideline. I think what it boils down to is that the cliff and the concrete-lined tunnel are substantial enough obstacles, resulting in a very low chance of either being found accidentally.

 

Very interesting thread, and I feel for ya! Your cache sounds like a fun one and I was rootin' for you to get an exception until, in one of your replies, you acknowledged that it would be possible to "scramble up the cliff" from the tunnel to the other cache. That's a lot different than an impenatrable barrier. That alone could cause an unwelcome erosion trail. I hope you get it fixed 'cuz if I ever get to NZ that's a cache that would be on my "must do" list!

Link to comment

 

My reviewer only talked about Mistaken Identity when explaining his/her decision. Also, theres only 1 cache in the park, so I thought Cache Saturation wasn't an issue.

 

 

As you'll have ticked the box saying you have adequate permission to place the cache from the parks owners, what do they have to say about the issue???? ;)

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

Thanks hukilaulau. I guess it comes down to how you define impenetrable. I can cross a river in a canoe, scale a wall with a rope, and climb a cliff by climbing up tree roots and the like. Nothings really impenetrable, and it really only refers to the Accidental Discovery part of the Saturation Guideline. I think what it boils down to is that the cliff and the concrete-lined tunnel are substantial enough obstacles, resulting in a very low chance of either being found accidentally.

 

Very interesting thread, and I feel for ya! Your cache sounds like a fun one and I was rootin' for you to get an exception until, in one of your replies, you acknowledged that it would be possible to "scramble up the cliff" from the tunnel to the other cache. That's a lot different than an impenatrable barrier. That alone could cause an unwelcome erosion trail. I hope you get it fixed 'cuz if I ever get to NZ that's a cache that would be on my "must do" list!

but you'll notice I didn't say anything about "accidentally." I'm picturing people doing your cache and then noticing that there's another one on their gps "only a few feet up the hill." ;)

Edited by hukilaulau
Link to comment

Virticle seperation is not enough. I've found caches 4 stories underground and 5 stories above ground. I'd be annoyed with another hide placed too close to those caches.

 

Another possible reason for the proximity guideline, not mentioned yet, is that cache owners often want to share a special place with other cachers. What fun would it be if a bunch of "me too" hiders crowded your really special place?

 

There are great reasons for the guidelines. Use the tunnel - but use it as a virtual waypoint. If muggles use the tunnel your cache might walk too easy. Caches in truely cool places tend to walk. Caches near cool places tend to last.

Link to comment

This thread made me smile. If the cache in question were in the UK it would probably be published with no question. The proximity guideline doesn't seem to matter any longer.

 

Alan

I'm very surprised you chose to make this accusation about the UK Reviewing team in the Main forum and not the UK forum where it would have more relevance and could be discussed more fully. However, if you are aware of any caches that that have recently been published in violation of the proximity guidelines it would have been a courtesy first to inform the UK reviewers. If you have already done this and not had any response then you need to send an email to contact@geocaching.com and ask Groundspeak to investigate why the guidelines are being ignored as you say they are.

 

Chris (MrB)

Link to comment

Just an update on my cache... I finally got it published! Yay!

 

Thanks to my reviewer "warming" to my cache idea, and a bit of good ol' persistance, he allowed me to cable-tie a tag inside the tunnel which redirects the player to the tree above ground.

 

I also invited the owner of the other cache to use the tree as his final, which in my humble opinion is a far better camo than hi current hide (on the ground behind a tree in shrubland) but after weeks of "sure, I'll check it out and get back to you", he never did.

 

Anyway, I think everyone is happy now. If you're ever in Auckland, please pay my cache a visit :-)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c1-5756a5b93e82

 

Thanks to everyone for their comments... it was educational!

 

Chris

Link to comment

Very interesting thread, and I feel for ya! Your cache sounds like a fun one and I was rootin' for you to get an exception until, in one of your replies, you acknowledged that it would be possible to "scramble up the cliff" from the tunnel to the other cache. That's a lot different than an impenatrable barrier. That alone could cause an unwelcome erosion trail. I hope you get it fixed 'cuz if I ever get to NZ that's a cache that would be on my "must do" list!

 

When a Kiwi says "scramble up a cliff" that doesn't necessarily mean a mere mortal would ever try it.

Link to comment

I'm glad that you were able to work with your reviewer and get this thing published. I wish I could get there, see the fort and get the password for more info :P I think that even in the thread civility won the day and was impressed when apologies were offered and mature solutions suggested.

 

Two thumbs up :P

Link to comment

Just an update on my cache... I finally got it published! Yay!

 

Thanks to my reviewer "warming" to my cache idea, and a bit of good ol' persistance, he allowed me to cable-tie a tag inside the tunnel which redirects the player to the tree above ground.

 

I also invited the owner of the other cache to use the tree as his final, which in my humble opinion is a far better camo than hi current hide (on the ground behind a tree in shrubland) but after weeks of "sure, I'll check it out and get back to you", he never did.

 

Anyway, I think everyone is happy now. If you're ever in Auckland, please pay my cache a visit :-)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c1-5756a5b93e82

 

Thanks to everyone for their comments... it was educational!

 

Chris

 

Your first two logs are nice. Must be rewarding:

 

"June 1 by acoster (3 found)

 

May 28 by AMADANON Inc. (297 found)

Yay! FTF

Took a bit of work to figure out what I was actually meant to do (too many puzzle caches, I guess); in retrospect, it it's pretty obvious.

 

Thanks for the great cache!"

 

Congrats!

 

"Nice one. A good adventure for my 3 & 4 year old boys! Cheers."

Link to comment

I'm glad I found this thread. I spent a lot of time placing a multi cache only to find out that there was another one "too close". (I might add that the other cache was a nano magnet attached to a metal bridge, not much thought involved here.)

 

My cache was on the opposite side of a park, and I felt that the cachers who frequent the park might like something new. I asked the reviewer to have someone physically visit the site before archiving it, and I even gave him the Google Map coordinates so he could see how the area looked. Personally, I am happy to find caches fairly close so I don't have to travel around to various locations.

 

After reading the support given to the reviewers, I see no need to pursue my case.

Link to comment

Yeah, after all of this, I can't help feeling like the "supporters" are just supporting the rule cos its written in the guidelines, rather than because it makes complete sense. I'm sure if everyone in the gc community were to vote, a majority would either vote for a reduction in the proximity distance (to me 100m sounds more than enough), or more of a case-by-case approach to applying the "guideline".

Link to comment

Yeah, after all of this, I can't help feeling like the "supporters" are just supporting the rule cos its written in the guidelines, rather than because it makes complete sense. I'm sure if everyone in the gc community were to vote, a majority would either vote for a reduction in the proximity distance (to me 100m sounds more than enough), or more of a case-by-case approach to applying the "guideline".

 

I have always found the reviewers more than happy to respond to emails about caches I'm planning. I have zero disappointments when I submit my cache page. I suspect most would vote to retain the present proximity distance or even increase it.

 

Jim

Link to comment

If a puzzle final and a traditional can share the same lamp-skirt here in Arizona, I don't understand why this should be a problem.

 

AHA! Perhaps you should make yours puzzle?

 

Good god tell me you're kidding. I wish all skirt caches would be archived.

Link to comment

I see that this cache has now been published. However, when I tried the link for the detailed history of Fort Bastion and got a DNS error.

 

Yeah, sorry, after years of uninterrupted hosting, my website hoster is having issues. I'll try to get that sorted.

Link to comment
I suspect most would vote to retain the present proximity distance or even increase it.

Absolutely. I'm thinking half a mile would be about right.

 

Can you please give a reason? Maybe here in NZ I don't understand some of the issues of more populated area's, in which maybe there could be different rules for different countries...?

Link to comment

I'm glad this worked out well!

 

I was going to suggest that another way to approach the situation would be to work with the owner of the nearby cache and politely ask if they would be willing to either... share a cache for the two purposes or... move a few hundred feet in one direction or another.

Link to comment
Can you please give a reason?

Sure! But I need to clarify that this is just my personal opinion, and should not be taken as any kind of call to arms.

For me, a good deal of the pleasure I derive from this game comes from the simple pleasure of the journey. I've noticed that my pleasure is reduced when the caches are so close together I barely have time to look around & smell the roses before I have to bury my nose in my GPSr. I tend to start focusing my hunt when I am about 100' away from ground zero, depending of course on the environment. For me, when hunting caches near the proximity limits established by Groundspeak, this means I only have 400' or so to really soak up the environment, getting in touch with nature, before I need to focus on the next hide. Obviously, increasing the distance between caches would have a negative impact on those folks who are number ho's, so I don't expect Groundspeak to change the proximity guideline.

Link to comment
... being from New Zealand, where saturation is not a problen. Heck it might never be in that Nation.

:)

 

Trust me, keeweechris is by no means alone as a first-time cacher in NZ who gets their cache denied due to the saturation guide. It happens a lot in the main centres to new and long-time cachers. And yes, there are some great caches and locations denied due to a nearby less-than-auspicious existing cache, but that's just the nature of the game.

Link to comment
... being from New Zealand, where saturation is not a problen. Heck it might never be in that Nation.

:)

 

Trust me, keeweechris is by no means alone as a first-time cacher in NZ who gets their cache denied due to the saturation guide. It happens a lot in the main centres to new and long-time cachers. And yes, there are some great caches and locations denied due to a nearby less-than-auspicious existing cache, but that's just the nature of the game.

 

:anibad::anibad: Hmmmm ... live where I live in NZ and saturation IS an issue ( not quite sure that it's a problem though), as ZG our reviewer will know, as he has had to turn down a cache or three of ours, including what we considered to be a very fine multi that was unique for our area, due to the saturation guideline. That particular multi was about our third cache that we tried to have published, but it just was not going to work out. *

Personally I would not want the guideline of 161 metres to be any less than it is, and would possibly prefer caches to be to be further apart, especially in urban areas. I'm all for geocaching remaining a low impact, unobtrusive, un-noticed activity, and any guideline that helps with this is good by me!!!!

 

(AND I'm a cacher who is about the numbers by the way!)

 

Annie

(*It was eventually modified and published at a much much later date, once other caches in the area had been archived in the natural processes of attrition.)

Link to comment
Can you please give a reason?

Sure! But I need to clarify that this is just my personal opinion, and should not be taken as any kind of call to arms.

For me, a good deal of the pleasure I derive from this game comes from the simple pleasure of the journey. I've noticed that my pleasure is reduced when the caches are so close together I barely have time to look around & smell the roses before I have to bury my nose in my GPSr. I tend to start focusing my hunt when I am about 100' away from ground zero, depending of course on the environment. For me, when hunting caches near the proximity limits established by Groundspeak, this means I only have 400' or so to really soak up the environment, getting in touch with nature, before I need to focus on the next hide. Obviously, increasing the distance between caches would have a negative impact on those folks who are number ho's, so I don't expect Groundspeak to change the proximity guideline.

Nothing says that you have to hunt for the next nearest... if they're too close together to allow you time to look around then search for every third or every tenth cache. :)

 

Hunt caches 1, 3, 5 and 7 this trip, then in a few weeks you can make another trip and hunt caches 2, 4, 6 and 8.

 

Let's all take responsibility for our own caching experience rather than expect Groundspeak to configure the game to our liking... if we're not having fun it's no one's fault but our own. :P

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Whoa....who set the wayback machine :P

 

Back on topic.....I guess

 

It won some award at a local caching event!

 

Good on-ya! :D Glad that things worked out for the best.

 

Maybe next time a new thread would work a bit better and linking back to the old thread for reference. Some individuals in our Community have some difficulty with flashbacks :)

Link to comment
Hunt caches 1, 3, 5 and 7 this trip, then in a few weeks you can make another trip and hunt caches 2, 4, 6 and 8.

Kewl! We can dispense with the whole proximity thing all together!

The number hos will be happy 'cuz they can find 50 caches in 50'

The quality cache hunters will be happy because... uh... I'll have to get back to you on this one. :P

Link to comment
Hunt caches 1, 3, 5 and 7 this trip, then in a few weeks you can make another trip and hunt caches 2, 4, 6 and 8.

Kewl! We can dispense with the whole proximity thing all together!

The number hos will be happy 'cuz they can find 50 caches in 50'

The quality cache hunters will be happy because... uh... I'll have to get back to you on this one. :P

Wait! Wait! I can answer this one!

 

The quality cache hunters will be happy because they can take pride in properly researching which caches to hunt and in having a great time finding the kind of caches they like! They are Masters Of Their Own Destiny :)

Link to comment

Glad to hear that it's a continued success. Thanks for the PM :P Definitely probably better to start a new topic though as people have a tendency to not look at post dates before responding.... Hope all is well down there and I'll have to get my good buddy down there into geocaching.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...