Secret or Hidden Guidelines

[+briansnat]

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.

 

Not necessarily. The chief unwritten guideline is "use your common sense". For example the gudelines prohibit Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

What happens is that someone reads it and thinks, hmmm they didn't specify day care centers so I'm going to hide one next to a day care center.

 

The "may include but not limited to" part is where common sense comes into play. It's where the reviewer can use it to deny that cache next to a day care center, or on a bridge's on ramp or in bus terminal, etc. even though they are not spelled out in the guidelines.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Many decades ago, I worked for Mickey Rat.

 

Really? I always knew you were a little Goofy.

 

As often as I agree with Riffster I figured there must be a low degree of separation. One of my colleagues also used to work for Mickey Rat. Her job? Tinkerbell. I'll be visiting the rat on Monday for a week long vacation.

Edited August 26, 2010 by NYPaddleCacher

[+tozainamboku]

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.

 

Not necessarily. The chief unwritten guideline is "use your common sense". For example the gudelines prohibit Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

What happens is that someone reads it and thinks, hmmm they didn't specify day care centers so I'm going to hide one next to a day care center.

 

The "may include but not limited to" part is where common sense comes into play. It's where the reviewer can use it to deny that cache next to a day care center, or on a bridge's on ramp or in bus terminal, etc. even though they are not spelled out in the guidelines.

I wasn't refering to lists that say "may include but not limited to" . Clearly the guidelines cannot foresee every situation and provide complete lists. A reviewer might have to provide some rationale on why a day care center is a terrorist target but a library isn't, but my guess is that it wouldn't be too difficult to understand why a cache was turned down. The main issue reviewers face is that one may approve a cache in a particular location while another will not. This results in cachers saying that a reviewer is being too subjective or unfair: As palmetto said

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

 

I'm willing to accept a certain amount of discretion on the part of reviewers. The guidelines are pretty good at indicating where reviewers have discretion by using words like "including but not limited", "may be archived", and "generally". The hidden guidelines I refer to are ones like "You can't call your cache a travel bug graveyard" or "You can't place a cache in the same location where you just archived a cache unless you make a substantial change". In one case, the reviewers (according to Keystone) have no discretion. Grounspeak has made a guideline that they have passed down to the reviewers but not the rest of us. In the other case, it appears the reviewer has used some discretion but hasn't explained the guideline that gives them this discretion. There is no guideline that I can find that says a reviewer may deny a cache because the owner had one in the same location previously.