Secret or Hidden Guidelines

[+tozainamboku]

A couple of threads got locked over the weekend before IMO we had an adequate discussion of the issue. Now, the main problem wasn't the issues being discussed but an attack on the forums that occurred over the weekend by one or more banned members opening up sock puppet accounts and posting to these and other threads. In some cases the reviewers were forced to delete messages by legitimate forum participants responding to the troll and that led to off topic discussion on the role of the moderators. Hopefully the trolls won't take over this thread but it may be irresistible as it invites the trolls favorite target - accusing TPTB of being arbitrary.

 

One thread dealt with a cache owner who decided to archive some caches and then submit new caches in the same locations. The reviewer decided these were essentially the same caches as the ones that had just been archived. The reviewer would not publish the new caches. Clearly a cache owner can archive a cache any time they see fit. The issue here was whether the was some guideline that the reviewer used to justify not publishing the new caches or whether he simply invented this guideline. Many people agreed with reviewer that it made no sense to simply archive a cache if you were replacing it with the same cache. But no one presented the guideline that was being enforced. Some attempted to use the permanence guideline. However that guideline allows cache owners to archive caches for valid reasons. Since what is valid is not spelled out, would it be a valid reason to archive a cache that has been around for while in order to hide a clearly different cache somewhere nearby? If there is some point at which the new cache is significantly different enough that it would be published, how is that point defined? My fear is that it is as subjective as the virtual cache "Wow" requirement was. I would argue that the reviewer hold his nose and publish the caches no matter how silly the cache owner's motivation seems.

 

The other thread dealt with the Original Stash Plaque and geocache. It seems the cache page became dispute between the cache owner and some Czech cachers who claimed a cache in the Czech Republic was visited more often. Jeremy apparently weighed in by posting a note on the cache page indicating that the Original Stash Plaque was not the most visited cache. It's not clear to me if Groundspeak edited the cache page or just told the cache owner to remove the claim. In any case the cache owner seems to have decided that if he was no longer responsible for the information on the cache page he would just put the minimum information in the description. Now, it seems clear that a cache owner cannot put whatever they want on the cache page. The cache page must meet the the guidelines and the Geocaching.com terms of use. But where is the guideline against making false claims about a cache. Liars caches would go away if this were the case. (And I know some cachers who would be quite happy if this were the case). Is there now a secret guideline about making claims about your cache on the cache page? How is this guideline enforced? It seems that if a cache owner is unwilling to make a change to the cache page, the only redress available is to archive the cache. It seems unlikely that Groundspeak would go so far as to archive the Original Stash Plaque. In part, I'm curious about what happened here but I don't believe there is much chance we will find that out. Instead perhaps we can discuss just when a false or not fully researched claim cannot be put on the cache page.

[Keystone]

Is there now a secret guideline about making claims about your cache on the cache page?

If there's a guideline above and beyond the terms of use, it is so secret that I don't know about it. That would be pretty darn secret.

 

Whoa! Did you just see a black helicopter?

[+t4e]

it all depends how the wind blows, there is no consistency in moderating on this forums

 

threads get closed based on arbitrary decisions, and instead of closing them could just as well delete the spam posts only

 

in the case of the Original Stash Plaque thread, by the time i finished reading it and wanted to reply it was closed, despite the instructions on the cache page to go to the forums for discussion

 

why it was closed?...your guess is as good as mine

Edited August 24, 2010 by t4e

[+SwineFlew]

I am extremely upset the way team360 is handing the situation of not letting people log it as a found even Groundspeak said its "ok" if a picture was taken to prove it that you were there.

 

People plan for years and spend alot of money to come out to Oregon and now they cant log it as a found even if a picture was taken to prove they were there.

 

Team360 is on the ground of getting banned for unsportsmanlike. That alone it all it need to get rid of him. I dont care how he was treated, he doesnt have to act like a baby.

[Keystone]

The thread is about the existence of "secret or hidden guidelines." It is not for rehashing the specifics of the recent events surrounding the Original Stash Tribute Plaque cache. The prior thread on that topic was closed due to personal attacks and potty language. It would be nice for this one to remain open so that people can offer viewpoints about "secret or hidden guidelines." Please refrain from personal attacks, and remain on topic. Thank you.

[+terrkan78]

....Instead perhaps we can discuss just when a false or not fully researched claim cannot be put on the cache page.

I suspect that it's not just false claims and the like that could get a cache page force edited or archived, but *anything* that I might put on one of my cache pages - if whatever I've put on my cache page angers enough people, and they're vocal enough about it, I would think that conceivably could bring about the same result (and I'm envisioning something like controversial statements in the cache description, etc.). Isn't it Groundspeak's sandbox? And even though it's *my* cache page, I would expect that they have the authority to tell me to edit it or archive it for pretty much any reason they want. I'd be a little miffed if that happened, because I wouldn't have anything on my cache page that I deemed inappropriate. And, frankly, it seems like it'd take something pretty inappropriate to garner this kind of negative attention on a *regular* cache page. But the Original Stash Plaque is not exactly a *regular* cache.

[+redsox_mark]

I suspect that it's not just false claims and the like that could get a cache page force edited or archived, but *anything* that I might put on one of my cache pages - if whatever I've put on my cache page angers enough people, and they're vocal enough about it, I would think that conceivably could bring about the same result ....

 

This makes sense to me. Unless there are guidelines issues with the cache page, I don't see Groundspeak getting involved, unless it causes an issue. Having a statement on the Original Stash cache (a high profile cache) which was no longer true was upsetting some other cachers, so they got involved. The other thing is the false claim is directly caching related, and GS could easily verify it. I think this is probably a rare case.

 

There is a cache near me called "Frog Pilgrimage", which states every year the road is closed for 2 months when frogs are migrating. It is actually toads, not frogs. I did think to email the owner, but decided not to, that it didn't really matter that this was incorrect. If I had, and the owner refused to change it, I would doubt Groundspeak would want to get involved. For one thing, how would they know if it was frogs or toads? And who really cares?

Edited August 24, 2010 by redsox_mark

[+pppingme]

Power trails used to be turned down by the reviewers and there wasn't even a hint of them in the guidelines. I know of cachers that were turned down because the reviewer thought it was a "power trail", and there was absolutely NO hint anywhere on the site these were forbidden at the time and no clear definition of what a power trail was. This was in 2006. The reviewer was quoted as saying that this was in discussion amongst the reviewers and none were being approved, despite no language in the "guidelines" at that time. This was a short string of about 7 caches.

 

So yes, there do seem to be "hidden guidelines".

 

As for the power trail issue, they were finally added to the guidelines, with some vague statement, later specifically forbidden, then later completely removed.

[+palmetto]

There are things enforced by reviewers that seem to surprise cachers again and again. I wouldn't call them "hidden guidelines" myself, but apparently they aren't obvious even to those who have read the guidelines.

No business names as cache titles comes to mind. While this might seem apparent as a part of the commercial guideline (hey, it's called advertising!) it sure comes as a surprise to many.

MissJenn posted to this forum a clarification about the commercial guideline in May 2007.

 

Adding "Business names should not be in geocache titles. In cases where business names must be mentioned (in some events, for example, it may make sense to do so), this can be done in the description." to the guidelines might help, but I'm not in favor of making them any longer.

 

Of late, Groundspeak has been using the Knowledge Books as a sort of commentary on the Guidelines. See these two articles, both of which clarify Guideline sections, Challenge Caches and Getting Your Cache Listed Quickly. I'm hoping that the guidelines will become shorter, bullet points perhaps? with links to relevant KB articles.

 

Power trails used to be turned down by the reviewers and there wasn't even a hint of them in the guidelines... 2006

 

The November 05 guidelines, in force at that time, had this language, "On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together."

In 2007, the language changed to, " On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache."

The change in the saturation guideline (April 09) was mentioned in the forum post that introduced it, but all the forum energy went to discussions of the death of Additional Logging Requirements.

[+palmetto]

If there is some point at which the new cache is significantly different enough that it would be published, how is that point defined? My fear is that it is as subjective as the virtual cache "Wow" requirement was.

 

One of the big surprises to me when I started reviewing is how much subjectivity it involves. Again and again, I struggle with where to draw the line on cache descriptions that stray from "informative" to "agenda", locations that go from slide from okay to OFF LIMITS (schools! schools are astonishingly common strange attractors of caches)(how close is too close?)(bridges, cachers love to put hides under and on top of bridges).

 

Subjectivity as a part of the review process isn't going to go away.

[Clan Riffster]

Let the parsing begin!

 

One thread dealt with a cache owner who decided to archive some caches and then submit new caches in the same locations.... But no one presented the guideline that was being enforced.

I believe there was another Guideline cited as well:

(I know I copy/pasted it a couple times. I think Brian did too)

Under the heading "Guidelines that apply to all cache types"

"At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced teachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed."

For the sake of clarity, perhaps we could call this the discretion clause, as it seems to grant the Reviewers a certain degree of discretion and flexibility to act just a hair outside the Guidelines, so long as their actions are in the best interest of the game. If a cacher does not like how that discretion is applied, they can always forward their concerns to Groundspeak, who will render a judgement.

 

The other thread dealt with the Original Stash Plaque and geocache. ... Is there now a secret guideline about making claims about your cache on the cache page?

I think there's insufficient data here to hold a rational discussion. We don't know who edited the cache page, nor do we know why it was done. Every time the tree of speculation grows a new branch, we drift further and further away from meaningful conversation. It looks like a group from overseas decided to get their kilts in a wad, turning the cache page into a place for silly rants. Did Team360 opt for the temper tantrum resolution, nuking his own cache page in a fit of angst? If so, why? Was he striking out at Groundspeak, or at the ninnies who used his cache page as a public dumping ground for their vendetta? We don't know. Without that knowledge, there is little to discuss beyond the basic principles. Can Groundspeak request that a cache page be edited, if its wording or imagery is causing a conflict? Of course they can. It's their sandbox.

 

On a completely unrelated note, my spell checker wants to change your moniker to Tozai Nanboku.

Kewl, huh?

[+BulldogBlitz]

Secret Guideline 3a:

 

The geocache hider may not complain about lazy finders of his/her 5-star puzzle cache who take short-cuts like Phone-A-Friend (PAF) in order to log a find.

[+Snoogans]

it all depends how the wind blows, there is no consistency in moderating on this forums

 

I would agree somewhat, but I wouldn't want to see a change.

 

This from a guy (me) who was once given a 3 day break because the giver of the break said his young daughter would be offended instead of manning up and standing behind his own judgement.

 

The fact is I happen to like that guy and I wasn't going to play coy that I wasn't pushing the envelope of good taste.

 

The moderators here are unpaid and mostly unthanked. Good people trying to do right in varied circumstances. I'd rather take a 3 day break undeserved (in my eyes only) than have them employ some cookie cutter politically correct reasoning to every post. I'd have been banned years ago if they did.

 

 

in the case of the Original Stash Plaque thread, by the time i finished reading it and wanted to reply it was closed, despite the instructions on the cache page to go to the forums for discussion

 

why it was closed?...your guess is as good as mine

 

Ummmm, I believe the OP asked for it to be closed. Go look.

[mancicle]

Let the parsing begin!

 

One thread dealt with a cache owner who decided to archive some caches and then submit new caches in the same locations.... But no one presented the guideline that was being enforced.

I believe there was another Guideline cited as well:

(I know I copy/pasted it a couple times. I think Brian did too)

Under the heading "Guidelines that apply to all cache types"

"At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced teachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed."

For the sake of clarity, perhaps we could call this the discretion clause, as it seems to grant the Reviewers a certain degree of discretion and flexibility to act just a hair outside the Guidelines, so long as their actions are in the best interest of the game. If a cacher does not like how that discretion is applied, they can always forward their concerns to Groundspeak, who will render a judgement.

 

 

funny that you read it that way. most people see it as telling you that sometimes reviewers may need to point out concerns even though the cache is legal. it doesnt mean they have the right to turn the cache down.

 

1 terrain caches would be a good example. it may be located on an easy trail that isnt wheelchari accessible. they might suggest that you change the terrain to 1.5 but they cant stop you form listing it as a 1 terrain.

 

there are a lot of things that a reviewer might see and point out. there is nothing wrong with that but its also not a good reason to turn down a cache.

 

and the fact that reviewers dont get paid is not a good reason for making your own rules. if we have to foolow the rules then they should too.

[+tozainamboku]

I suspect that it's not just false claims and the like that could get a cache page force edited or archived, but *anything* that I might put on one of my cache pages - if whatever I've put on my cache page angers enough people, and they're vocal enough about it, I would think that conceivably could bring about the same result (and I'm envisioning something like controversial statements in the cache description, etc.). Isn't it Groundspeak's sandbox?

I just read the TOU and sure enough it says you agree to not post any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

That seems pretty broad. It may be that Team360 felt he had to delete everything on the page in order to comply with the TOU. I'm not sure however that the Czech cachers found the claim on the Original Stash Plaque page was objectionable. I think they may have simply wanted to post their counter claim. There is a general feeling that cache pages shouldn't be used for these sorts of arguments so it may also be appropriate to delete the Czech logs as off topic. However, by Jeremy posting on the cache page, it appears that Grounspeak made a decision that making a false claim that this cache was found more often then any other cache was somehow objectionable to someone.

 

Let the parsing begin!

 

One thread dealt with a cache owner who decided to archive some caches and then submit new caches in the same locations.... But no one presented the guideline that was being enforced.

I believe there was another Guideline cited as well:

(I know I copy/pasted it a couple times. I think Brian did too)

Under the heading "Guidelines that apply to all cache types"

"At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced teachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed."

For the sake of clarity, perhaps we could call this the discretion clause, as it seems to grant the Reviewers a certain degree of discretion and flexibility to act just a hair outside the Guidelines, so long as their actions are in the best interest of the game. If a cacher does not like how that discretion is applied, they can always forward their concerns to Groundspeak, who will render a judgement.

I don't read the descretion clause as a blank check to the reviewers to do whatever they want. Instead, it allows the reviewers to bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting. My take is that you as the cache owner are free to accept or reject these suggestions. If you reject the suggestions, the reviewer should hold his or her nose and publish the cache anyhow. A clause that allows reviewers to inject their own feelings is unacceptable. It is basically a way to invent secret or hidden guidelines to allow reviewers instead of Groundspeak to define what is acceptable.

 

On a completely unrelated note, my spell checker wants to change your moniker to Tozai Nanboku.

Kewl, huh?

If I were to create an account for all the alternative spellings of my name, I'd have more sock puppets than ashnikes. But how many geocachers have a song written about them. Edited August 24, 2010 by tozainamboku

[MisterEFQ]

The Original Stash Plaque thread should have been closed sooner. Within 15 minutes of the thread going up, the CO removed the old info that was wrong. But that wasnt enough for the people causing the rukas.

 

And now all the info is gone from that cache. Its pretty disapointing. I dont think he was trying to fool anybody. The page just needed to be updated.

 

So if something is wrong on a cache page. It might be a good idea to be nice and send one message to the CO.

Edited August 24, 2010 by EhFhQ

[+Snoogans]

So if something is wrong on a cache page. It might be a good idea to be nice and send one message to the CO.

 

I would leave Jeff alone unless you know him personally. I do know him personally and I'm leaving him alone... Well, now I am.

 

If you do contact him to be anything other than supportive and nice. You asked for it.

 

I've taken crap for one of my caches and I sorta get some of his hard feelings but this one is never ending for Jeff. My own experience hardly compares. Some of you reading this that once owned locationless caches might get some idea of what he has to deal with on that cache.

 

Lets just let him work it out. Talk in the forums all you want. It's a free country.... But don't bother him.

[MisterEFQ]

I have no clue who Jeff is. Im just commenting in general. Because of what happened, all the cool info from that page is gone. We all suffer.

 

Catch my drift.

[+Snoogans]

I have no clue who Jeff is. Im just commenting in general. Because of what happened, all the cool info from that page is gone. We all suffer.

 

Catch my drift.

 

Gotcha.

 

Jeff is the owner of the plaque in question and the CO you mentioned. He's a friend of mine. Still is. And I gave him both barrels about what he has done to that info so lets give him some time to cool off and do the right thang.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Snoogans

[mancicle]

did you give jeremy both barells for sticking his nose in jeffs business?

[+BulldogBlitz]

what about bob?

 

 

 

(whoops... wrong thread)

[+sbell111]

So if something is wrong on a cache page. It might be a good idea to be nice and send one message to the CO.

 

I would leave Jeff alone unless you know him personally. I do know him personally and I'm leaving him alone... Well, now I am.

 

If you do contact him to be anything other than supportive and nice. You asked for it.

 

I've taken crap for one of my caches and I sorta get some of his hard feelings but this one is never ending for Jeff. My own experience hardly compares. Some of you reading this that once owned locationless caches might get some idea of what he has to deal with on that cache.

 

Lets just let him work it out. Talk in the forums all you want. It's a free country.... But don't bother him.

Sure, but truth be told that Jeff brings most of his drama upon himself.

 

did you give jeremy both barells for sticking his nose in jeffs business?

Actually, it's Jeremy's business.

[+ras_oscar]

So, are we ready to have an intellectual conversation about what does and does not belong on a cache page? I believe this is a community led sport, and we are after all the representatives of the community.

 

Obviously its hard in words to describe what is offensive. Any description I write can be peppered with examples where my description has unintended consequences.

 

We also all know what offensive content is when we see it. I don't have a problem with leaving that to the descretion of the reviewers. That's what they {aren't} paid for.

 

A decription of why a spot is important to the CO helps add flavor and context. I might go easier on a LPC if I know it's where the CO performed an emergency delivery of his third daughter 2 years ago. Not so lame now, huh?

 

I personally have ann issue with descriptions or hints that are deliberately misleading. I have a particular issue with hints that make the find harder. That's not what hints are for. But, reviewers aren't equipped or expected to find every hide and evaluate the hint before publish. Just because its my personal peeve doesn't mean its not part of the game.

 

Finally, I dont have a problem with a reviewer that chooses to recommend specific changes to the page. Its easier on the perspective CO to respond constructively to "remove this claim that your cache is the biggest in the city of tblisi or provide evidence that you have researched this claim" then "check page details for accuracy" its not reviewer edits, its effective communications.

 

Any more constructive input?

[+mtn-man]

 

in the case of the Original Stash Plaque thread, by the time i finished reading it and wanted to reply it was closed, despite the instructions on the cache page to go to the forums for discussion

 

why it was closed?...your guess is as good as mine

 

Ummmm, I believe the OP asked for it to be closed. Go look.

Exactly.

[+ArcherDragoon]

*sigh...

 

Do we really need a guideline for everything???

 

(PS...this is not meant to be directed at the OP...it is just a general observation of the trend as of late in the forums to call for a "ruleing" for the forums becuase someone was upset about a cache...and not always a cache of their own...but about someone else's cache)

 

Someone selling common sense could make a fortune in today's society...if only common sense could be sold...

 

(again...not meant to be directed at the OP...just a general observation...)

[+geodarts]

 

So yes, there do seem to be "hidden guidelines".

 

 

As Keystone recently said:

 

Groundspeak has flat out told the reviewers not to publish "graveyards" for trackables. Your reviewer has no discretion in the matter.

 

No, you won't find a guideline paragraph about it. The guidelines started off 10 years ago as a few paragraphs and have grown in length and complexity ever since. If we listed absolutely everything that couldn't be done, the guidelines would be twice as long and even fewer people would read them.

 

 

So apparently we know about half of the rules?

[+tozainamboku]

*sigh...

 

Do we really need a guideline for everything???

 

(PS...this is not meant to be directed at the OP...it is just a general observation of the trend as of late in the forums to call for a "ruleing" for the forums becuase someone was upset about a cache...and not always a cache of their own...but about someone else's cache)

 

Someone selling common sense could make a fortune in today's society...if only common sense could be sold...

 

(again...not meant to be directed at the OP...just a general observation...)

Why have guidelines at all?

 

I agree that every situation cannot be foreseen and the reviewers should be given latitude to account for these unforeseen situations. However pulling surprises on geocachers who are attempting to follow the letter and spirit of the guidelines is not particularly nice. Reviewers should be held accountable to explain their decisions- and perhaps through the appeals process they are. For various privacy reasons, Groundspeak does not share the results of appeals with the general caching public. We only find out about these cases when someone comes to forums to complain. Often we hear 2nd or third hand ("my friends cache was denied" or "what happened to the cache I was watching?"). It's somewhat natural to be curious about this process seems secret and hidden to most of us. In the end, letting both Groundspeak and the reviewers know that an issue needs to be explained to everyone results in improvements to the the guidelines, greater explanation in the knowledge books, and better communication overall.

 

 

So yes, there do seem to be "hidden guidelines".

 

 

As Keystone recently said:

 

Groundspeak has flat out told the reviewers not to publish "graveyards" for trackables. Your reviewer has no discretion in the matter.

 

No, you won't find a guideline paragraph about it. The guidelines started off 10 years ago as a few paragraphs and have grown in length and complexity ever since. If we listed absolutely everything that couldn't be done, the guidelines would be twice as long and even fewer people would read them.

 

 

So apparently we know about half of the rules?

The need for trackable graveyards went away a long time ago with the ability to move trackables to unknown location. If there is no cache to find then there is nothing to publish - though I remember once pointing out that this is also an unwritten guideline. If there is a cache and the cache owner wants to offer it as a place where trackable owners can move their missing trackables, I'm not sure why Groundspeak should care. Perhaps they prefer that users use the unknown location capability.

 

It is clear to me that reviewers get told by Groundspeak not to publish certain caches and these instructions don't always make it into the next version of the guidelines and they don't even get announced in the public forums. If we are lucky we find out when someone complains in the forums. These are the hidden and secret guidelines. All I am asking for is a way to communicate these to geocachers. If the goal is to keep the guidelines short and readable, then fine, don't put everything in the guidelines. There are announcements in the forums and updates in the knowledge books that can be used to share these decisions and explain the reasons behind them. For example, the knowledge books has a more detailed definition of challenge caches than the guidelines.

[+Snoogans]

did you give jeremy both barells for sticking his nose in jeffs business?

Actually, it's Jeremy's business.

 

Well, it's Jeremy's geocache listing service.

 

It was Jeff's business. He got the plaque minted and monumented with full consent of the land owner. No one else did that before he got there and it has been to the great enjoyment of this community.

 

I'm not gonna take sides. I happen to like both of them and like it was mentioned earlier, I'm one of the folks that would like to see the info return.

[+sbell111]

did you give jeremy both barells for sticking his nose in jeffs business?

Actually, it's Jeremy's business.

 

Well, it's Jeremy's geocache listing service.

 

It was Jeff's business. He got the plaque minted and monumented with full consent of the land owner. No one else did that before he got there and it has been to the great enjoyment of this community.

None of that speaks to the issue of the listing. In fact, no action at all has been taken regarding Jeff's plaque.

[+briansnat]

The need for trackable graveyards went away a long time ago with the ability to move trackables to unknown location. If there is no cache to find then there is nothing to publish - though I remember once pointing out that this is also an unwritten guideline

 

It's not exactly unwritten. There is no logbook and no container so trackable graveyards would be covered under those guidelines

[+StarBrand]

I really have no problem with reviewers taking any of the mentioned actions even if the guidelines don't explicitly address the issues. Seemed they were just exercising some experience and thier own version of common sense.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I suspect, as Palmetto mentions, that subjectivity can enter into reviewers' decisions. And that can make it difficult to figure out what may be acceptable. I found two recycled caches recently. Not 'churned'. Both formerly mystery caches. One was muggled, and archived. And reappeared as a traditional. The other was archived for a different reason, and reappeared as a traditional shortly thereafter. I had previously found both mystery caches. Both very nice spots! But they were easy finds, because I'd been there before... Not sure how different that is than the 'churned' caches. Those were in disrepair for a while. Archived and replaced by the CO. Very subjective dfference betweem 'churned' and 'recycled'. Other reiewers might not have a problem with it.

[+smstext]

The moderators here are unpaid and mostly unthanked.

 

 

Whenever I have a cache published I always send a thank you email to my local reviewer thanking him for his time, i know they are unpaid and basically charity workers (or a labour of love) and that their time is valuable. People are always quick to moan, but how many are ever quick to thank people for their time and positive action(s).

[+geodarts]

The need for trackable graveyards went away a long time ago with the ability to move trackables to unknown location. If there is no cache to find then there is nothing to publish - though I remember once pointing out that this is also an unwritten guideline

 

It's not exactly unwritten. There is no logbook and no container so trackable graveyards would be covered under those guidelines

 

Actually, in the cache at issue there was both a logbook and container so that was not part of the discussion.

 

But the point of my original post was not to debate whether this kind of cache should be permitted, but whether there is set of unpublished guidelines -- Keystone indicates that there are.

 

Groundspeak has flat out told the reviewers . . . .

 

The guidelines started off 10 years ago as a few paragraphs and have grown in length and complexity ever since. If we listed absolutely everything that couldn't be done, the guidelines would be twice as long and even fewer people would read them.

 

 

I agree with previous posts suggesting that these could be put into a knowledge book, which could simplify the review process (assuming some people read the book).

Edited August 24, 2010 by mulvaney

[+pppingme]

Power trails used to be turned down by the reviewers and there wasn't even a hint of them in the guidelines... 2006

 

The November 05 guidelines, in force at that time, had this language, "On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can.

 

The caches I was referring to were well over "600 feet" apart, with enough space for others to place caches that fit within the 528ft guideline.

[+briansnat]

I suspect, as Palmetto mentions, that subjectivity can enter into reviewers' decisions. And that can make it difficult to figure out what may be acceptable. I found two recycled caches recently. Not 'churned'. Both formerly mystery caches. One was muggled, and archived. And reappeared as a traditional. The other was archived for a different reason, and reappeared as a traditional shortly thereafter. I had previously found both mystery caches. Both very nice spots! But they were easy finds, because I'd been there before... Not sure how different that is than the 'churned' caches. Those were in disrepair for a while. Archived and replaced by the CO. Very subjective dfference betweem 'churned' and 'recycled'. Other reiewers might not have a problem with it.

 

One of the ones you're referring to might be mine. If the cache type is changed. Say from a multi to a traditional or a puzzle to a traditional most reviewers will tell you to archive the old one and submit a new listing because the essential nature of the hunt has changed, even if the cache is in an identical spot.

 

Now archiving and re submitting a cache that is essentially identical to the last obviously might not fly with some reviewers (as we've seen in another thread).

Edited August 25, 2010 by briansnat

[+mtn-man]

For the nit-pickers, sometimes I really wish we had a complete and full set of guidelines to point them to, everything parsed out to a n'th degree. If printed, it would probably be as thick as War and Peace.

[+tozainamboku]

For the nit-pickers, sometimes I really wish we had a complete and full set of guidelines to point them to, everything parsed out to a n'th degree. If printed, it would probably be as thick as War and Peace.

I don't expect the guidelines to cover everything. What I object to is that guidelines are discussed by reviewers in the reviewers forum and they sometimes come to a consensus on how they are going to interpret something. The general public doesn't find out until someone gets a cache rejected and they complain about it in the forum. And I've heard that Groundspeak sends memos to the reviewers or gives them guidance in some form on what can or cannot be published. This again is not shared with geocachers until someone gets a cache turned down and posts something like

Groundspeak has flat out told the reviewers not to publish "graveyards" for trackables. Your reviewer has no discretion in the matter.

 

I understand that privacy concerns probably mean we aren't going to get access to the reviewer forums to see what is decided there and we may not see the memos from Groundspeak which might reference specific cases that resulted in the need to issue the guidance. I just want some kind of communication when these decisions get made.

[+FireRef]

For the nit-pickers, sometimes I really wish we had a complete and full set of guidelines to point them to, everything parsed out to a n'th degree. If printed, it would probably be as thick as War and Peace.

 

But it would definitely make things easier - "I can do this because it says I can", or "You can't have this cache because it violates this guideline". And definitely more consistent.

[+Markwell]

But not everything is always black and white. That's why they are GUIDELINES and not rules.

 

I keep going back to this post:

"Find cache, sign log, log online, get smiley..."

 

Let's say those are the rules. Someone actually asked me once if I could take the APE cache I hid to some big picnic gathering mega event. If I had taken it to the event, people would have been able to find it there, sign the log, log online and get the smiley. Is that fair? No? OK - let's enhance the rule: "Find the cache in its original location, sign log, log online, get smiley..."

 

But what if someone moves it, or the owner moves it and it's easier to find? "Find the cache in its original location as placed by the owner, sign log, log online, get smiley..."

 

But what if the log book is soaking wet, and the paper crumbles - can't I drop a business card with my signature and date in the cache? "Find the cache in its original location as placed by the owner, sign log as best as you can or give documentation that you were actually at the location with the container in your hand, log online, get smiley..."

 

You see how this happens - and how the guidelines got to be so long?

 

And this one:

Wait - You want people to use their brains instead of having a rule set up for them telling them what they should and shouldn't do? The guidelines would be much shorter if everyone did that. Right now, the Listing Guidelines have 5,269 words and 31,609 characters with spaces (discounting the Table of Contents and the "Return to Table of Contents" messages). In trimming out the examples and specifics and making the statements generalities, I got it down to 700 words - just over 4,000 characters with spaces. But some people LIVE to push the envelope or dance on the "acceptable" line. They have to have things spelled out exactly for them.

[+ras_oscar]

A relative of mine used to work as an administrative assistant for a retired gentlemen that was on the review committee for the americas Cup yacht race. Was suprised to hear that the committee met weekly for 12 months a year to debate and interpret the rules for the race, and to process dispuit claims. Certainly hope our hobby doesn't get like that with a big honkin rule book. Would most likely intimidate and discourage the mewbies that our sport relies on to keep the hunt interesting.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

OT, but have you ever read the "Deed of Gift" of the America's Cup? Talk about 'hidden guidelines'!! It's an amazing thing to read. But the "Deed of Gift" itself is actually very short.

 

But to the point of this thread as has been noted here and previously, it would be nearly impossible to write a list of guidelines that would be "complete" and would cover "everything". And it would be so big that no one would read it.

 

You hear the same types of complaints about "why doesn't Garmin produce a user manual for my GPS unit that covers EVERYTHING?" Same reason applies. It would be nearly impossible, it would be too big, and no on would read it anyway.

[+Markwell]

...it would be too big, and no on would read it anyway.

What about an off? Would they?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

...it would be too big, and no on would read it anyway.

What about an off? Would they?

 

Dang it!!

 

I hate typos!!!!!

[+mtn-man]

But to the point of this thread as has been noted here and previously, it would be nearly impossible to write a list of guidelines that would be "complete" and would cover "everything". And it would be so big that no one would read it.

Yep. Precisely. The complaints from those asking for it would be just that.

 

"How would anyone be expected to read that thing?"

 

Previous longer versions of the guidelines have called out as being too long, so efforts have been made to streamline them. You cannot please all of the people all of the time. These forums prove that. Common sense has to be your personal guideline.

 

I do think that Groundspeak has become better about notification actually. Recently, as the "Release Notes" topics have been posted, some of those release notes include changes to the guidelines. I think what you are asking for has been considered already and these changes are being noted (this isn't the first time this has come up after all, right?).

[Keystone]

In addition to the Release Notes mentioned by mtn-man, the Groundspeak Knowledge Books have expanded over the past year to provide materially better explanations of listing guideline issues. The listing guidelines highlight an issue and, in several cases, the Knowledge Books expand on the basic principle to provide greater detail. I expect this trend to continue.

 

Using the cited example, however, I don't think you'll ever see a KB page on travel bug graveyards. The question doesn't come up in cache submissions often enough to justify the allocation of electrons for that article. There is no five-page thread in the Reviewer Forum where we laugh at the dozens of rejected travel bug graveyard submissions. Every year or two, someone (often a newer reviewer) will receive such a submission for review, and ask for guidance.

 

Now, if the guidelines were silent on cache placements at or near elementary and secondary schools, that would be different. I have to say "no" to a submission like that pretty much every week, yet it is right there in the guidelnes. There was a forum thread today advocating support for a series of caches near elementary schools. You would never know that provision was even a part of the guidelines, from where I sit, but it's indeed there. It's just that few people read it. Even fewer would read the encyclopedia being advocated by some posters to this thread.

 

I can easily live with a guidelines document that is silent on travel bug graveyards in the hope that more people might read the paragraphs covering cache saturation, railroads, schools and cemeteries.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Keystone

[Clan Riffster]

Common sense has to be your personal guideline.

Fortunately, the vast majority of cachers read the guidelines, comprehend them, create hides and submit them with no problems. Gotta side with Mtn-Man on this. If the guidelines were lengthy enough to cover every conceivable issue, few people would read them. Even fewer would comprehend them. Many decades ago, I worked for Mickey Rat. The "rulebook" for my crew took 3 seperate 3" binder notebooks to contain them. I don't know anyone who had read them. I imagine they are even bigger now. Not sure how doing something like that would benefit our hobby.

[+BulldogBlitz]

i'm not sure this thread has enough moderator participation.

 

to quote chris walken... "i got a feva... and the only prescription is...

 

more moderator!"

 

[+Castle Mischief]

Many decades ago, I worked for Mickey Rat.

 

Really? I always knew you were a little Goofy.

 

I'm siding with the reviewers on this one too. Hundreds of caches are submitted and approved every day. The few that cause a minor hiccup are not cause to take the rules down to the microscopic level of detail. Work with your reviewers. Listen to your reviewers.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+tozainamboku]

In addition to the Release Notes mentioned by mtn-man, the Groundspeak Knowledge Books have expanded over the past year to provide materially better explanations of listing guideline issues. The listing guidelines highlight an issue and, in several cases, the Knowledge Books expand on the basic principle to provide greater detail. I expect this trend to continue.

 

Using the cited example, however, I don't think you'll ever see a KB page on travel bug graveyards. The question doesn't come up in cache submissions often enough to justify the allocation of electrons for that article. There is no five-page thread in the Reviewer Forum where we laugh at the dozens of rejected travel bug graveyard submissions. Every year or two, someone (often a newer reviewer) will receive such a submission for review, and ask for guidance.

 

Now, if the guidelines were silent on cache placements at or near elementary and secondary schools, that would be different. I have to say "no" to a submission like that pretty much every week, yet it is right there in the guidelnes. There was a forum thread today advocating support for a series of caches near elementary schools. You would never know that provision was even a part of the guidelines, from where I sit, but it's indeed there. It's just that few people read it. Even fewer would read the encyclopedia being advocated by some posters to this thread.

 

I can easily live with a guidelines document that is silent on travel bug graveyards in the hope that more people might read the paragraphs covering cache saturation, railroads, schools and cemeteries.

I can understand that most people would rather there be a short one page list of guidelines they can read beforee they submit a cache. But when your cache is one of the one or two each year that is rejected because of an unpublished secret hidden guideline, it doesn't make much different that you got rejected for something that people rarely come across. Your cache was rejected and you had no way to know this. Even if you follow the forums regularly you would not know this unless someone else who ran into it posted about it.

 

Perhaps 500 pages of details would not be read and having it wouldn't effect the reviewers' job. The guideline that gets violated once or twice a year would still be violated once or twice a year. But it would provide something to point to, to tell the geocacher whose cache was not published, "See, it says it right here". Without this it just seems that a reviewer can make up any guideline they want and if their decision is appealed, Groundspeak can say "That's one of the secret guidelines we don't tell you about. The reviewer is correct". Groundspeak obviously communicates these secret guideline to the reviewers some way. It can't be that hard for them to communicate what they are to all geocachers. What they have done with release notes, forum posts to announce major guideline changes, and more articles in a much better organized Knowledge Books are all positive moves in this direction.