First time cache drama..

[RoninGeo]

Before I get into specifics - I have an honest question about two seemingly contradictory concepts.

 

1. Geocaches that have problems, for example inaccurate coordinates, appear to fall into a "zero tolerance" policy of being archived instead of corrected.

 

2. As a cache owner, the website explicitly allows the owner to change, correct, or otherwise amend the details about a cache.

 

Furthermore, the ability to edit the cache details goes on to explicitly allow the owner to make corrections to the Coordinates, via a specific link that automatically preps the log to indicate that a change is being made to the coordinates, and provides edit boxes to type in said new coordinates.

 

The only problem is: When you click Submit on this form, the website throws an Internal Server error (verified on several different machines on several different networks).

 

Now then. Before even getting into my personal drama which brought me to this, let's look objectively at these two concepts.

 

As for #1, the lesson I was recently "taught" was that the community moderators take it very seriously that a cache listing have the absolute most accurate coordinates when launched. This has obvious implications - mainly that it wastes the time of first time finders. Fair enough - we can all agree this is a good thing. The policy, then, is for these listings to get archived, which as far as I can tell amounts to the reviewer crumpling up your application and tossing it in the trash and handing you a fresh, blank application. That is: It is seemingly completely out of the question to simply UPDATE the cache listing to fix whatever is wrong, that somehow STARTING OVER is the proper way to handle this. I'll get to how childish this policy is later, but let's move on.

 

#2, aka the website, seems to tell a different tale. It offers features that explicitly allow for the modification of data related to the cache, including the coordinates.

 

Put #1 and #2 together, and it appears as through the software developers who designed the site wasted a lot of time on features that are super-ceded by draconian policy which retards the ability to make corrections.

 

Now let's visit how childish this policy is. We've already established that this policy isn't the result of physical limitations within the software - that's easy enough to accept. If the system provides no way to make corrections, the only recourse is to start over. That would be simple, right? But that's not it - what else could it be?

 

As the (questionably) helpful reviewer I was trying to work with put it, NOT archiving an inaccurate geocache is an "implicit approval of that action, and tells others that they can do it too". Ah, now we're getting somewhere. This is, apparently, a reactionary policy - apparently we're all 5 years old and if I see my little brother getting away with it, then I'm just going to go off and do it too. I can see it now, I pull up my GPS and the nearest geocache is named "your mom" and exists one mile straight down into the earth's core.

 

If my sarcasm isn't humoring you, I'll speak plainly. If this is the way you intend to run your community, then, please:

 

1. Disable the features that allow you to make corrections to any of the "cardinal sins" of inaccuracy. Hell, give them a blurb that says: "If your <whatever> is inaccurate, you cannot make changes to it, please archive this listing and create a new one". This will save everyone time!

2. Reinforce your FAQ to explicitly state: "Hey dummy, you better make sure everything's correct, failure to do so will result in irreversible archiving of your listing!"

 

Frustrated,

RoninGeo

[jholly]

Oh, my.

 

First off the ability to change the co-ordinates on a published cache is limited, something like 500 feet I believe. Beyond that it will require a moderator to review and change the listings.

 

I understand one thing that really gets the reviewers upset is if you creep the cache a couple hundred feet at a time to the new location. They will archive the listing if they catch you.

 

But as with all postings of this nature we have learned that the first post is hardly the truth of the matter. I'm sure (almost positive from the way the posting is written) that you have left out a few "details" that would change the opinion of

the community. So until Paul says "that's the rest of the story" I'll just watch the drama.

 

Edit: I did take a look at your archived cache and your off by over 0.2 of a mile. It not a simple transposition of a number or just a mistyped number, like I've seen several times. In cases like this the reviewer simply makes the change without much of a comment. But I have to agree with the reviewer, it does not appear that you used a gps to get the readings. There are places where the internet maps are not well aligned with what a gps would read. One of the sections of the guidelines you agreed to to post a cache is that the location was determined with the use of a gps.

Edited June 25, 2010 by jholly

[+dfx]

hm. how did the reviewer figure that you didn't use a GPS? did you tell him that?

[+t4e]

ooh my all this because of one cache you put out with bad coordinates?

 

you've barely been in this game for a month LMAO

 

FYI the feature that allows one to change the coordinates works perfect, i did change them on a couple of my caches, of course was just a 10M or so difference

 

so maybe before you jump the gun and point fingers....go read the knowledge database

 

and more specifically this

You can change the coordinates of a cache only up to a small distance. You may not and should not go beyond 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m).

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p....page&id=61

 

not everything is perfect on GC.com...but the majority of "rules" are there for a reason and they are good, and the restriction on how far you can change the coordinates is one of them....it makes even more sense if you consider the cache saturation guideline

Edited June 25, 2010 by t4e

[+Ike 13]

#1) 30 feet off is acceptable (as long as it's not done on purpose of course). Publishing a cache that you know is more than say 50 feet off is just bad form. Finding out a cache is .3 miles off you should disable until it is fixed.

 

#2) The Change coordinates log is there for a few reasons. 1) Your cache has gone missing, you really like the location, and want to preserve the history of the cache. So instead of archiving your cache you decide to move it 70 feet away to a slightly different location. (2) After publishing your cache you hear many reports of the coordinates being 25 feet off. You go back to the location and take a second, more accurate, reading. Now instead of annoying everyone who looks for your cache you update the coordinates.

 

The reviewer did the right thing (I recently saw the same thing happen in my area). Guess what, the hider went back out got a better reading and the reviewer unarchived the hide and updated the coordinates.

 

I don't know the full story, and looking at the page it's hard to tell. Take a deep breath. Explain to the reviewer that you tried to change the coordinates, but for whatever reason you got the error message (which I've never encountered). The reviewer can update the coordinates for you or maybe even walk you though the process (maybe you missed a step).

[NordicMan]

I'm not sure if this is case-in-point, and I'm honestly not badmouthing a particular brand on purpose, but I've seen lots of "iPhone users" get all upset when they're told their device isn't sufficiently accurate to post cache coordinates with. Sorry to say this but it seems a lot of owners of that particular device just can't (or refuse to) believe their gift-from-the-Gods device is not as accurate as most lowly dedicated GPSr's

 

But like I said I don't know if that is what is going on here.. some more info from the OP is needed. Care to elaborate?

[+briansnat]

You can update your coods up to .1 mile. Beyond that you need a reviewer's assistance. Your move I assume was much more than that because one finder referred to it being .3 mile off. That would take an e-mail to the reviewer to fix.

 

The guidelines also require that you use a GPS to obtain coordinates. I'm not sure how it was determined that you didn't, but if that was the case then the reviewer will not update your coordinates unless you used a GPS to obtain the updated coordinates.

 

BTW, archiving a cache is not like crumpling it up and throwing it away. It's more like sticking it in a closet. It can be unarchived. Once you've obtained accurate coordinates using a GPS you can ask the reviewer to update it with the new coordinates and unarchive it.

Edited June 25, 2010 by briansnat

[RoninGeo]

I'm vague because I wanted to understand the policies in their original intent and separate the specifics of my reviewer or my situation. Given that, I posted what I believed to be accurate coordinates. As some of you have indicated, not every method is accurate, and this is what I fell victim to. It was not a disingenuous attempt to mislead people, if you looked at the cache yourself, then you see just how much effort I did put into trying to make it a unique cache and the fact that people were still able to locate it despite the coordinate issue.

 

This was also my first attempt at doing this - which as someone earlier in this thread callously pointed out I've only been doing this for a month. This is exactly the elitist, dismissive reply that I was given by the reviewer when I tried to work *with* him on this. It was an honest mistake that could have been remedied within *hours* of the inaccuracy being spotted.

 

Let me articulate my point further:

 

The cache was first found something like THE next morning when it went live. At that point, I firmly believed the coordinates were accurate (yes, I only had my iphone and google maps, I get it now, this was bad). The first people to find it STILL FOUND IT - and even came back to post accurate coordinates that were very close.

 

Now let's press pause here. At this point, let's examine the facts:

 

1) The "damage" has already been done. People had their time wasted due to my inaccurate coordinates, to which I accept full responsibility for.

2) Corrected coordinates were supplied, and even cross verified by a *second* party who posted coordinates that corroborate the location.

3) That *same day* I attempted to go into the site and update the coordinates to those the FTF people mentioned.

 

Now, let's pretend for a moment that the site didn't crash when I tried. Problem solved. Problem regulated by the community - I still "learn my lesson" in doing this, because I would have seen that my original coordinates were clearly incorrect while updating it. Now, in truth, if the site has a limitation on how far I could move it, then I would have seen that, which would have brought me to my second course of action, which I took regardless:

 

I then *proactively* emailed the reviewer explaining the situation, and asked him to help out. Some time passed. Worried that he was't going to get back to me quickly, I *proactively* posted a generic log to the website apologizing for the error and stating that I was working to remedy it.

 

Now let's pause here and do some role-playing.

 

I'm a community reviewer. I get an email. I go check it out. I remember that hey, this is that guy who's new to geocaching, seems like he's having a problem with his first cache. I also remember that hey, this isn't just some cache someone threw together in 2 seconds, he put some serious thought into this thing! Oh, man, he was off by like a quarter mile.. that's unfortunate! What should I do? What would you do?

 

Well, what he did do was email me back - asking what I used for the coordinates and why they were so far off. Fair enough! I would have done the same. I wrote back noting the devices I used to verify the coordinates. (All I own is an iphone, and I used it in conjunction with google maps when I got home to make sure the coordinates aimed at the right place)

 

Now let's pause here again! What would you do?

 

Here's what I would have done:

1) TEMPORARILY archive the listing so it doesn't send anyone else down the wrong path.

2) EDUCATE the person who was obviously trying their best to provide meaningful content to the community on where he went wrong, rather than callously copy pasting a blurb out of the agreement and having nothing further to say.

3) NOTICE that two independent parties cited log entires with updated, accurate coordinates.

4) UPDATE the coordinates to the more accurate values.

5) UNARCHIVE the listing so that it can resume giving people a place to check out.

 

Is this unreasonable? 30 extra seconds to look into the matter and update coordinates rather than click the "Archive" link? Go the 5 min extra mile to a new community member who doesn't know everything there is to know about caching but wanted to participate? Instead, both he and I have wasted significantly more time going back and forth in emails.

 

@briansnat, IkeHurley13 - I find your replies to be completely fair, and if the reviewer had given me the indication that archiving can be temporary until corrected, I wouldn't have had a single other thing to say about it, and would have thanked him for working with me. In fact, this is all I wanted to happen from the get-go.

 

However, his stance across... 3 email replies now - has been consistent: "You are welcome to obtain accurate coordinates with a real GPS, and then submit a new cache page for it." This reply comes after me asking him, plainly, if he a) has the power to change coordinates on my behalf, but isn't just unwilling to, or if he WOULD change the coordinates, but cannot at this time because of the error on the website. He purposely did not answer either of those inquiries, which, now reading your confirmation that they CAN, means that he wanted to make an example out of me, i.e. was unwilling to do so.

 

@NordicMan - I'm not an Apple Fanboi, I'm merely a person who owns an iphone and used it to find his first geocache, turning him on to the hobby, and believing that the same device was accurate enough to trust for hiding a cache. There's a certain amount of immaturity comments like yours carry, but make no mistake, there's a difference between believing you did everything correctly, and getting reprimanded as if you were willingly breaking the rules.

 

@t4e - Thank you, too, for your condescending comments - are you a cache reviewer by chance? "LMAO". And sorry to break it to you, but the issue with updating the coordinates is real, was verified by the reviewer, and according to him, has been "generating this error for a week or two". And this is exactly my point - I'm new to all of this, I want to participate. I'm sure you're absolutely perfect in every new hobby you pick up, right?

 

@dfx - Yes, I explained it to him openly, to which he basically did what t4e did, RTFM, GTFO, try again later.

 

@jholly - Short of pasting my entire email chain, which is tacky, I guess it's left to you to form your own opinion. I merely wanted to understand how the community felt about looking at things like this on a case-by-case basis and working with people who are new, but genuinely trying (i.e. a real community) vs. no-tolerance slap down of any situation regardless of intent that isn't up to snuff (more akin to a government agency, not a community of hobbyists)

 

I also wanted to see if the policy was as draconian as this individual made it sound. It appears as through the website developers didn't waste their time coding the update features in, but meant them to be for very limited use, and that the idea is to work with the reviewer team who can, as indicated, un-archive listings.

 

So, thank you for the education on this, for what it's worth I suppose. I will most certainly pick up a better GPS and re-verify the coordinates for the cache, and petition that it be updated and unarchived.

 

I guess one parting question - if the reviewer decides to stick to his god-complex guns, is it possible to request a different reviewer?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

A note to ALL posters. Foul language is not permitted on these forums.

 

Using acronyms to disguise foul language is not okay either. Please refrain from that in your posts.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

To the OP, as noted in the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines (http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx), you have several recourses (some of which you may have availed yourself of already) if your cache is archive and you believe it is in error.

 

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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email address.

[+d+n.s]

Unfortunately, in your frustration you said some harsh stuff about your local volunteer reviewers. People here seem to immediately hate anyone who does this.

 

At the core of your argument, I see a lot of truth. It sounds like maybe your mistake was handled rather callously. still, reviewers can have a pretty hefty workload from what I understand and they may not have had the time to hold your hand and treat your individual case within it's context.

Looks like everybody made some mistakes. Perhaps you should show them more patience than they showed you?

 

I'm not sure. I'm new too, but it seems like you are digging a hole for yourself whenever you vent about reviewers here. I can sort of see why, but it makes for some pretty boring and intellectually dishonest discussions :/

 

everyone loses

Edited June 25, 2010 by d+n.shults

[jholly]

 

I guess one parting question - if the reviewer decides to stick to his god-complex guns, is it possible to request a different reviewer?

 

no. And that statement certainly does not help your position.

 

I still think something is still missing. I'm aware of at least two? three? caches that had really bad coordinates that required reviewer intervention. They were changed with little to no comment. In fact one had to be changed twice. None were archived. I doubt the reviewer community would reject coordinates taken with an iPhone. They might not be the super best, but they are certainly adequate and would certainly produce results that were better than 0.23 miles. I've never heard of a reviewer archiving a cache just because the first coordinates were really bad and they were asked to fix them. Keep in mind the job of the reviewer is to publish caches. This is what they do, this is what they like. None of the nearby traditional caches seem that they would give you proximity problems. But there is a nearby mystery and of course there could be multi's from some distance away. Where you placed your cache (not where you published co-ordinates) seems like a place to have a cache. I just wonder did you submit your cache, had it rejected for proximity issues and then decide to publish co-ordinates that would pass with the idea of fixing them later? But reviewer found out and then archived the cache because you did not work with him on the proximity issues? From what reviewers have said here on the forums archiving a cache just because the initial coordinates were bad just doesn't happen.

Edited June 25, 2010 by jholly

[+Harry Dolphin]

how childish this policy is

draconian policy

(questionably) helpful reviewer

someone earlier in this thread callously pointed out

condescending comments

god-complex

 

How to Win Friends and Influence People - Dale Carnegie.

Have you ever considered tact? For anyone seeking help, it works far better.

I have never seen a cache archived for bad coordinates without plenty of warning from the reviewer. Usually a month (from what I've seen.)

You cannot change the coords more than 528 feet without the reviewer's assistance. There are good reasons for this. It is usually not considered 'draconaian' nor 'childish'. The reviewer does not know what the correct coordinates are unless you tell him/her/it. One of my favorite FTFs was on one that was 825 feet off. CO used the parking coords for the North coords. I followed the line straight south, and found it after four tries. When I posted the corrected coords, the reviewer requested the CO correct the coords, or it would be archived. Nothing draconian nor childish about this. CO could have used the coords that I, or another cacher, provided, but chose to correct them himself. That works. But since they were more than 528 feet off, the intervention of the reviewer was necessary.

Remember that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Ditch the attitude. Ask your question without 'god-complex' or 'condecending', and you will get plenty of help (even though some of it will be condescending.)

[+Team Cotati]

Is there an attorney in dee house?

[+Ike 13]

As Motorcycle Mama said,

Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an email with complete details, waypoint name (GC*****) and a link to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com

 

Your side of the story sounds like you did everything properly, but there's always more than one side.

 

I don't want to sound elitist, but you have 1 find. You have A LOT to learn. Bashing others for being frank does not do anyone any good.

[+briansnat]

how childish this policy is

draconian policy

(questionably) helpful reviewer

someone earlier in this thread callously pointed out

condescending comments

god-complex

 

How to Win Friends and Influence People - Dale Carnegie.

Have you ever considered tact? For anyone seeking help, it works far better.

I have never seen a cache archived for bad coordinates without plenty of warning from the reviewer. Usually a month (from what I've seen.)

You cannot change the coords more than 528 feet without the reviewer's assistance. There are good reasons for this. It is usually not considered 'draconaian' nor 'childish'. The reviewer does not know what the correct coordinates are unless you tell him/her/it. One of my favorite FTFs was on one that was 825 feet off. CO used the parking coords for the North coords. I followed the line straight south, and found it after four tries. When I posted the corrected coords, the reviewer requested the CO correct the coords, or it would be archived. Nothing draconian nor childish about this. CO could have used the coords that I, or another cacher, provided, but chose to correct them himself. That works. But since they were more than 528 feet off, the intervention of the reviewer was necessary.

Remember that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Ditch the attitude. Ask your question without 'god-complex' or 'condecending', and you will get plenty of help (even though some of it will be condescending.)

 

Mr. Dolphin is a wise mammal. Heeding his advice will serve you well.

[+t4e]

 

@t4e - Thank you, too, for your condescending comments - are you a cache reviewer by chance? "LMAO". And sorry to break it to you, but the issue with updating the coordinates is real, was verified by the reviewer, and according to him, has been "generating this error for a week or two". And this is exactly my point - I'm new to all of this, I want to participate. I'm sure you're absolutely perfect in every new hobby you pick up, right?

 

 

you're welcome!!!

 

no, i'm not a reviewer but maybe i should be

one doesn't need to be one to know the guidelines

 

yes, the issue with updating coordinates is real when you try to change them by more than .1 mile, as its been pointed out several times

i changed the coordinates on one of mine 2 weeks ago

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...34-d97d7c8e9796

 

there is no draconian reviewer out there, they are people volunteering their time, show them respect

 

i am willing to bet that you did not read their notes

 

all that aside, did you expect any other response to your first post after you come here, with a big attitude and tone bashing reviewer, guidelines etc?

 

i have seen many new cachers coming in the forums asking for help, and yes this community may be harsh at times but is equally helpful, it all depends how you present yourself and the problem you're having

you certainly did not let it transpire that you want to learn

Edited June 26, 2010 by t4e

[+Team_Searchgeo]

Ok here is from a fellow newbie. How about going out and finding a few caches before you hide one!!! You have one cache find to your name, your using a smart phone and your wondering why your cache has been archived?!!

I have only been doing this for 2 months and I have 29 finds but I am going to wait to at least 100 finds before I hide one myself. I used to use a smart phone but realized that the only way to do this is with a real GPSr. Got my PN-40 about 2 weeks ago. All the time I am finding I am learning more and more about how to hide a cache. When I go to hide my cache after a 100 finds I hope that I will do it properly but even if something does happen(like being archived) i will not come on here and make a big deal over my mistake!!!

Edited June 26, 2010 by Team_Searchgeo

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Read this all once, read it again, left for a bit. Returned and read it all again. I still see the same (although I did try to see the OP perspective -- still cannot) rant with little merit.

 

Common advice given is that one should read the guidelines, read them again, and read them AGAIN slowly so that one can understand just what they mean.

 

IMO, to make an attempt at placing a hide... failing, then trying to correct that failing, only to fail again and retry... all without (apparently or obviously [your choice there]) without reading AND understanding placement guidelines, is one thing. But then, openly "calling out" the reviewer and the system, certainly won't garner too much sympathy from those reading that rant, or the second one for that matter.

 

Assistance and guidance is available here in the forums. That is what they exist for -- as well as the occasional rant to let off steam. But attitude can build walls, sometimes very big walls. I would say this thread has the beginning of something to rival the Great Wall of China.

 

Trying to help here, really... check your attitude at the door and leave it there as force is usually greeted with force.

[+dfx]

Your side of the story sounds like you did everything properly, but there's always more than one side.

no he didn't. it was his first hide, and at the bottom of the submission form there's a little checkbox: "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache". either he didn't read, didn't understand or chose to ignore the guidelines, because they explicitly say "you must ... obtain the coordinates with a GPS", which he didn't do. the reviewer had every right to take action - archiving it may have been a bit harsh, he could also just have disabled it, but as a personal victim of smartphone coordinates, a part of me can't help to think "good riddance".

[+Ike 13]

dfx I'm not arguing against the reviewer. In my original post I said the reviewer was right.

 

I just also wanted to point out that if he did try to contact the reviewer he was going in the right direction. Take away his attitude and ranting and it sounds okay. But seeing threads in the past we all know that there is probably a lot that he left out (the reviewers side) That is what I was trying to say.

[+palmetto]

I don't know if the original poster is still reading this thread. Probably not.

 

In any case, a bug was introduced to the update coordinates log in the last site update, one that I hope will be repaired in the next.

 

What used to happen, and should happen when you attempt to update coords more than 161m, is that you get a notice to contact a reviewer. The notice even harvests the name of the reviewer who published, and offers that name as a link (which creates it's own problems when reviewers have retired).

 

Lately, it just throws that Internal Error. Useless.

 

I'm sorry this happened to you. A dead end, with no way forward.

[NordicMan]

@NordicMan - I'm not an Apple Fanboi, I'm merely a person who owns an iphone and used it to find his first geocache, turning him on to the hobby, and believing that the same device was accurate enough to trust for hiding a cache. There's a certain amount of immaturity comments like yours carry, but make no mistake, there's a difference between believing you did everything correctly, and getting reprimanded as if you were willingly breaking the rules.

WOW how could I have known the OP was an iPhone user?? He didn't mention that in his original note,, and it certainly couldn't have been deduced from his attitude..

[+Prime Reviewer]

There have been some questions as to why the page was archived, which I'll address.

 

The cache page was not submitted in accordance with the Guidelines. Had I known beforehand that the CO had placed the cache using a smart-phone map application instead of an actual GPS, it would have been handled at that time. But that information didn't come to light until people attempting to find it reported that it was as much as .3 miles away from the posted coordinates. The CO wanted to just adjust the posted coordinates to those reported. However, there were two sets of coordinates posted, about 25 feet from each other. I don't know how he picked one from the other, but it seems there would still be a 50/50 chance of publishing bad coordinates. Furthermore, neither I nor the CO really know what they actually found. Just a few days ago I had to disable a missing cache, because people were suddenly logging finds on it, but reporting that they found it 70 feet away (and posting those coordinates for others to use). They weren't finding the cache they thought they did, but instead they found a placed, but never published cache that was put there 18 months ago. This happens more than you'd think. So the people did find some sort of cache when looking for the CO's, but neither I nor the CO know if it's actually his cache. That's why the Guidelines require that the OWNER obtain accurate coordinates for a cache. Relying on FTFers to fix your bad coordinates it not acceptable.

 

Some have asked why the page couldn't have still been used, once the CO gets accurate coordinates. The cache page could have been retracted, but once people have logged a cache page, that presents a number of problems, and is generally avoided. Also, the cache was reviewed and published specifically for the original coordinates. A change of that distance requires the cache to be re-reviewed at the correct location. That's why a CO is only allowed to move a cache no more than about 500' without reviewer involvement. Like many reviewers, I conduct all review communication via Reviewer Logs, rather than email. But by the time the problem was discovered, multiple people had placed the cache on their watch lists, and any number of people may be monitoring it through bookmarks. So even if I had retracted the cache page, it would have been impossible to conduct a review of the new location, and communicate any problems to the CO in a private and secure manner. Since it was no longer possible to use the existing cache page, it was archived and the CO was requested to submit a new cache page when he had obtained accurate coordinates.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There have been some questions as to why the page was archived, which I'll address.

 

 

Some have asked why the page couldn't have still been used, once the CO gets accurate coordinates. The cache page could have been retracted, but once people have logged a cache page, that presents a number of problems, and is generally avoided. Also, the cache was reviewed and published specifically for the original coordinates. A change of that distance requires the cache to be re-reviewed at the correct location. That's why a CO is only allowed to move a cache no more than about 500' without reviewer involvement. Like many reviewers, I conduct all review communication via Reviewer Logs, rather than email.

 

I understand that there may have been a couple of different issues with this cache, and the issues related to posting reviewer notes on an already published cache, but knowing the problems related to using reviewer notes, why couldn't you make an exception in a case like this and use email? It seems to me that you had an opportunity to help out a cache owner and show a human side to the review process, but by sticking to your "I only conduct review communication via Reviewer logs" guns the cacher owner may see you as someone that is preventing he/she from placing caches rather than someone that is assisting getting caches published.

[+wyld_bill2003]

There have been some questions as to why the page was archived, which I'll address.

 

The cache page was not submitted in accordance with the Guidelines. Had I known beforehand that the CO had placed the cache using a smart-phone map application instead of an actual GPS, it would have been handled at that time. But that information didn't come to light until people attempting to find it reported that it was as much as .3 miles away from the posted coordinates. The CO wanted to just adjust the posted coordinates to those reported. However, there were two sets of coordinates posted, about 25 feet from each other. I don't know how he picked one from the other, but it seems there would still be a 50/50 chance of publishing bad coordinates. Furthermore, neither I nor the CO really know what they actually found. Just a few days ago I had to disable a missing cache, because people were suddenly logging finds on it, but reporting that they found it 70 feet away (and posting those coordinates for others to use). They weren't finding the cache they thought they did, but instead they found a placed, but never published cache that was put there 18 months ago. This happens more than you'd think. So the people did find some sort of cache when looking for the CO's, but neither I nor the CO know if it's actually his cache. That's why the Guidelines require that the OWNER obtain accurate coordinates for a cache. Relying on FTFers to fix your bad coordinates it not acceptable.

 

Some have asked why the page couldn't have still been used, once the CO gets accurate coordinates. The cache page could have been retracted, but once people have logged a cache page, that presents a number of problems, and is generally avoided. Also, the cache was reviewed and published specifically for the original coordinates. A change of that distance requires the cache to be re-reviewed at the correct location. That's why a CO is only allowed to move a cache no more than about 500' without reviewer involvement. Like many reviewers, I conduct all review communication via Reviewer Logs, rather than email. But by the time the problem was discovered, multiple people had placed the cache on their watch lists, and any number of people may be monitoring it through bookmarks. So even if I had retracted the cache page, it would have been impossible to conduct a review of the new location, and communicate any problems to the CO in a private and secure manner. Since it was no longer possible to use the existing cache page, it was archived and the CO was requested to submit a new cache page when he had obtained accurate coordinates.

 

The sentence bolded by me has me a little confused. Can you or can you NOT use a GPS equipped phone to obtain coordinates to hide a cache?

[jholly]

There have been some questions as to why the page was archived, which I'll address.

 

The cache page was not submitted in accordance with the Guidelines. Had I known beforehand that the CO had placed the cache using a smart-phone map application instead of an actual GPS, it would have been handled at that time. But that information didn't come to light until people attempting to find it reported that it was as much as .3 miles away from the posted coordinates. The CO wanted to just adjust the posted coordinates to those reported. However, there were two sets of coordinates posted, about 25 feet from each other. I don't know how he picked one from the other, but it seems there would still be a 50/50 chance of publishing bad coordinates. Furthermore, neither I nor the CO really know what they actually found. Just a few days ago I had to disable a missing cache, because people were suddenly logging finds on it, but reporting that they found it 70 feet away (and posting those coordinates for others to use). They weren't finding the cache they thought they did, but instead they found a placed, but never published cache that was put there 18 months ago. This happens more than you'd think. So the people did find some sort of cache when looking for the CO's, but neither I nor the CO know if it's actually his cache. That's why the Guidelines require that the OWNER obtain accurate coordinates for a cache. Relying on FTFers to fix your bad coordinates it not acceptable.

 

Some have asked why the page couldn't have still been used, once the CO gets accurate coordinates. The cache page could have been retracted, but once people have logged a cache page, that presents a number of problems, and is generally avoided. Also, the cache was reviewed and published specifically for the original coordinates. A change of that distance requires the cache to be re-reviewed at the correct location. That's why a CO is only allowed to move a cache no more than about 500' without reviewer involvement. Like many reviewers, I conduct all review communication via Reviewer Logs, rather than email. But by the time the problem was discovered, multiple people had placed the cache on their watch lists, and any number of people may be monitoring it through bookmarks. So even if I had retracted the cache page, it would have been impossible to conduct a review of the new location, and communicate any problems to the CO in a private and secure manner. Since it was no longer possible to use the existing cache page, it was archived and the CO was requested to submit a new cache page when he had obtained accurate coordinates.

 

The sentence bolded by me has me a little confused. Can you or can you NOT use a GPS equipped phone to obtain coordinates to hide a cache?

 

I think you missed the key point of the statement - a smartphone *MAP* application. You can't place a cache using a map.

[+FairladyNY]

There have been some questions as to why the page was archived, which I'll address.

 

The cache page was not submitted in accordance with the Guidelines. Had I known beforehand that the CO had placed the cache using a smart-phone map application instead of an actual GPS, it would have been handled at that time. But that information didn't come to light until people attempting to find it reported that it was as much as .3 miles away from the posted coordinates. The CO wanted to just adjust the posted coordinates to those reported. However, there were two sets of coordinates posted, about 25 feet from each other. I don't know how he picked one from the other, but it seems there would still be a 50/50 chance of publishing bad coordinates. Furthermore, neither I nor the CO really know what they actually found. Just a few days ago I had to disable a missing cache, because people were suddenly logging finds on it, but reporting that they found it 70 feet away (and posting those coordinates for others to use). They weren't finding the cache they thought they did, but instead they found a placed, but never published cache that was put there 18 months ago. This happens more than you'd think. So the people did find some sort of cache when looking for the CO's, but neither I nor the CO know if it's actually his cache. That's why the Guidelines require that the OWNER obtain accurate coordinates for a cache. Relying on FTFers to fix your bad coordinates it not acceptable.

 

Some have asked why the page couldn't have still been used, once the CO gets accurate coordinates. The cache page could have been retracted, but once people have logged a cache page, that presents a number of problems, and is generally avoided. Also, the cache was reviewed and published specifically for the original coordinates. A change of that distance requires the cache to be re-reviewed at the correct location. That's why a CO is only allowed to move a cache no more than about 500' without reviewer involvement. Like many reviewers, I conduct all review communication via Reviewer Logs, rather than email. But by the time the problem was discovered, multiple people had placed the cache on their watch lists, and any number of people may be monitoring it through bookmarks. So even if I had retracted the cache page, it would have been impossible to conduct a review of the new location, and communicate any problems to the CO in a private and secure manner. Since it was no longer possible to use the existing cache page, it was archived and the CO was requested to submit a new cache page when he had obtained accurate coordinates.

 

The sentence bolded by me has me a little confused. Can you or can you NOT use a GPS equipped phone to obtain coordinates to hide a cache?

 

I think you missed the key point of the statement - a smartphone *MAP* application. You can't place a cache using a map.

You should probably find a few more caches before hiding your own. It takes a while to get used to all that is involved in placing a cache correctly.

[+wyld_bill2003]

jholly: thanks for pointing that out for me, don't know how I missed the "map" part.

 

FairladyNY: You may have me mixed up with the OP. I have actually been caching since 07 and have found over 400 caches. As I have just been shown by jholly how easy it is to misread something, I will forgive you this time. LOL

[+Crow-T-Robot]

the reviewer had every right to take action - archiving it may have been a bit harsh, he could also just have disabled it, but as a personal victim of smartphone coordinates, a part of me can't help to think "good riddance".

 

I'd rather see it archived. If the cache had been temporarily disabled, how would the owner have gotten updated coordinates? Since he doesn't have a GPS, he probably would've once again taken coordinates with his iPhone and hoped for the best. That's just not good enough. He also couldn't "borrow" the supplied coordinates from other cachers because you still have to demonstrate the ability to get accurate coordinates yourself to place a cache.

[+tozainamboku]

Does anyone elses head hurt from reading the OP's posts? It's amazing how when someone feels wronged how creative they can get.

 

I can understand the frustration at the error on the change coodinates page that Palmetto refers to. The system should not crash if you try to move a cache more than 528 ft. It should give a reasonable error message.

 

I'm not entirely sure how Prime Reviewer decided that the OP did not attempt to obtain accurate coordinated using his GPS equipped iPhone. It seems that many newbies are having problems getting coordinates with a iPhone while others do not have this problem. Perhaps a discussion in the GPS and Technology forums on obtaining good coordinates with an iPhone is in order.

 

Reviewers often make decisions based on partial evidence. While this often results in angry cache owners who feel they have been treated wrong, it is also the only way the volunteer reviewers have to work. They cannot be expected to spend time investigating each problem and give cache ownerw some kind of hearing where they can present evidence. Nor can they be expected to hold hands and lead people through the process of fixing problem. (There are plenty of people who are willing to give advice on the forums). Sometimes the reviewers will get it wrong and archive a cache too quickly, and this is why there is an appeal process. But getting your cache archived is not the death sentence that people make it out to be. Often the reviewer can unarchive a cache once the problem is fixed. In some cases, for some reviewers, it is more convenient to start over with a new cache page. This is what Prime Reviewer is asking the OP to do. The OP should take a deep breath, investigate how to get accurate coordinates using an iPhone, and resubmit his cache using a new page. It is not the end of the world to have a cache listing archived.

[+briansnat]

The OP should take a deep breath, investigate how to get accurate coordinates using an iPhone, and resubmit his cache using a new page. It is not the end of the world to have a cache listing archived.

 

Yep, it only takes a few minutes to fill out a new cache page and submit it. He can even cut and paste the text from the old, reducing the time further. I don't see why it even warrants a rant.

[+JimmerUK]

Let's all just stick our fingers in our mouths and hail a cab to reality town for a second.

 

This is a simple miscommunication, that's all.

 

Look at it from the OP's point of view:

 

He's discovered Geocaching and got all excited at finding his first cache, as I'm sure we all did.

 

The moment he popped the lid of the iconic lock&lock he thought to himself "I've got a brilliant idea for a cache! I love this!" as I'm sure we all did.

 

By the sounds of it he lovingly spent some time putting his cache together, not some pokey magnetic nano stuck thoughtlessly behind a street sign, and trusting his device (and why shouldn't he if he used it to find one already) placed it and submitted it for publishing with glee in his heart that he's contributed to the community.

 

The reviewer saw the cache with admittedly a severe accuracy issue and, after a couple of messages, decided to archive it. Understandably the reviewer didn't have time to write an essay on why, probably having eleventy-seven other caches to review, but clearly he didn't convey much information as to the reason for the cache being archived.

 

The OP, understandably, views that his cache has been rejected out of some old-boy elitism against the new fandangled iPhone members of the community and, after failing to elicit a reasonable response from the reviewer as to why, he gets shirty.

 

It turns out that the OP's ONLY mistake was to use the wrong tools for the job. He used Google Maps on his iPhone and not a proper GPS application such as MotionX or indeed the official Geocaching App.

 

Is his enthusiasm and subsequent outburst at his perceived rejection really such a crime?

 

A new member shouldn't be chastised for making a mistake, their enthusiasm should be embraced, they should be helped and (quite literally in this case) pointed in the right direction.

 

Also, this has highlighted the fact that there does actually seem to be some elitist element by the dedicated GPSr old-guard against the newer iPhone users.

 

Remember, the iPhones will have better chipsets than older dedicated GPSr units. Just because some people can play Doodlejump or make phonecalls on their devices as well as find geocaches doesn't make them any worse or less valid a tool.

 

Every community needs new members. I've only been doing this for a couple of months, I started with an iPhone and found it perfectly acceptable (except under heavy tree canopies, but then who doesn't have trouble under the trees). I've been very active in my area and have gained a bit of a reputation because, as you can probably tell, I'm awesome. I've since bought a Garmin Oregon (which arrived today), and I have several prototype caches, with hours of build-time behind them, being tested for weathering before I put them out. If I'd had the same experience as the OP at the very beginning I'd probably be a bit miffed too, and would have knocked the whole thing on the head there and then.

[+d+n.s]

@NordicMan - I'm not an Apple Fanboi, I'm merely a person who owns an iphone and used it to find his first geocache, turning him on to the hobby, and believing that the same device was accurate enough to trust for hiding a cache. There's a certain amount of immaturity comments like yours carry, but make no mistake, there's a difference between believing you did everything correctly, and getting reprimanded as if you were willingly breaking the rules.

WOW how could I have known the OP was an iPhone user?? He didn't mention that in his original note,, and it certainly couldn't have been deduced from his attitude..

do people still play this boring game? Its 2010

People start throwing mud a little too quick 'round here over something as minor as geocaching and consumer electronics

Edited June 29, 2010 by d+n.shults

[knowschad]

It seems to me that this could have been handled better on both ends. I think that Prime Suspect could have worked better with the newbie hider, but it also seems obvious that the newbie hider may not have been very willing to work with anybody, judging only by the tone of this post. That said, no big deal. OP... get GOOD coordinates, use copy/paste if you need to, and create a new cache. That would have taken much less effort than it took to post your rants here. And if your coordinates really were 0.3 miles off (or even close to that) you should be embarrassed.

[+velrahnkoon]

There have been some questions as to why the page was archived, which I'll address.

 

 

Some have asked why the page couldn't have still been used, once the CO gets accurate coordinates. The cache page could have been retracted, but once people have logged a cache page, that presents a number of problems, and is generally avoided. Also, the cache was reviewed and published specifically for the original coordinates. A change of that distance requires the cache to be re-reviewed at the correct location. That's why a CO is only allowed to move a cache no more than about 500' without reviewer involvement. Like many reviewers, I conduct all review communication via Reviewer Logs, rather than email.

 

I understand that there may have been a couple of different issues with this cache, and the issues related to posting reviewer notes on an already published cache, but knowing the problems related to using reviewer notes, why couldn't you make an exception in a case like this and use email? It seems to me that you had an opportunity to help out a cache owner and show a human side to the review process, but by sticking to your "I only conduct review communication via Reviewer logs" guns the cacher owner may see you as someone that is preventing he/she from placing caches rather than someone that is assisting getting caches published.

 

I can understand this PoV, but in all brutal honesty:

 

If the CO had followed the RAW and used a GPS (not a map application) to get the coordinates this would be a non-issue.

 

Yes the reviewer could have gone the extra mile. I don't hold it against him that he didn't though. There could be any number of reasons why the reviewers only use the Reviewer logs to communicate.

 

The CO is the one who made the mistake here. If I had done what the CO did I would have taken the criticism and laid the blame squarely where it belongs - on my own shoulders. I know it's 2010 and the concept is quickly escaping us as a species, but there is such a thing as personal responsibility. If the CO had followed the published guidelines there wouldn't be a need for this thread - the blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of the CO.

Edited June 29, 2010 by velrahnkoon

[+PokerLuck]

I've heard some criticism of the reviewer for wanting to use Reviewer logs to handle the correspondence with the CO on this issue. I can certainly understand the position of the reviewer in this respect. I used to perform support to an online community that involved correspondence, most of it by email, on a large number of diverse and unrelated issues. It was a nightmare trying to keep track of all the different issues, how things had evolved, what their current status was, using just email. The concept of including a copy of previous correspondence in replies seems to be lost to a lot of people, so I had to use my own method of keeping track of everything. If I had been able to use something like Reviewer logs to keep track of issues, I would have demanded it.