Appealing Reviewer Decisions - Merged topic

[+Fort S]

Hello everyone,

 

I was wondering if anyone would be willing to share their experiences regarding the process of having a geocaching reviewers decision appealed. I am in a situation in which a reviewer is holding firm to the letter of the law and feel there is grounds for flexibility. Additional information has been provided to the reviewer as to the reasoning for the exception. The reviewer to their credit did post the scenario and reasoning for other reviewers to comment on (although I have no proof of this and did not provide details in spite of request for this information).

 

I understand the next step is to go to appeals and would greatly appreciate any assistance or insight.

 

Thanks.

 

Gord of Fort S

[+BlueDeuce]

Placing a cache within the posted guidelines helps. Having to explain why your cache should be accepted anyway sometimes requires an appeal. Don't blame the reviewer for not providing you an exception and referring you upstairs. It's not always up to just the reviewer to allow it.

Edited September 25, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+Fort S]

Hello everyone,

 

I have recently had a reviewer refuse to publish a cache in which it was deemed to be too close to another cache (also mine). The rule was applied "as the crow flies" versus the actual route individuals would need to take. Further the concentration concern and confusing one cache for anther would not occur as one is a micro, the other is a regular container and both locations are walled off parks with distinct entrances and detailed descriptions of the location and the particular reason for the cache being there.

 

Thanks.

[+Fort S]

Placing a cache within the posted guidelines helps. Having to explain why your cache should be accepted anyway sometimes requires an appeal. Don't blame the reviewer for not providing you an exception and referring you upstairs. It's not always up to just the reviewer to allow it.

 

Thank you BlueDeuce.

 

For clarity, I am not blaming the reviewer, However, he did not suggest I refer this upstairs and did not indicate there was any means to have this looked at by others or that there was an appeals process. I found that out on my own and talking to other cachers. My concern is slavishly following the rules without looking at the spirit or intent of the scenario and how this will enhance the caches experience. The concern is over two caches being placed too close to each other (I own both). The rule has been applied "as the crow flies" when in fact there is no direct route and both locations are very distinct areas, walled off with specific entrances and different cache sizes. I have provided this information but the justification is that exceptions cannot be made otherwise the rules become meaningless.

[+gpsfun]

Chances are you will find that a proximity issue between two of your own caches will not be granted an exception.

[+Fort S]

Chances are you will find that a proximity issue between two of your own caches will not be granted an exception.

 

Thanks GPS Fun. Can you advise why this would be the case? Sounds like this is an absolute approach with no flexibility to review the situation on its merits.

 

Thanks.

[+gpsfun]

Chances are you will find that a proximity issue between two of your own caches will not be granted an exception.

 

Thanks GPS Fun. Can you advise why this would be the case? Sounds like this is an absolute approach with no flexibility to review the situation on its merits.

 

Thanks.

I gave a general answer to the first question because I do not know the circumstances of your two caches.

 

A general response to the second question is that as a cache owner, you should already know where the first cache is located before hiding the second one, and the proximity guideline is pretty clear. Generally, as a reviewer I will tend to show a little flexibility when a proximity issue is inadvertent and minor. Each situation is different and will likely be assessed on its own merits.

 

The volunteer reviewer involved is the only one who can respond specifically to the situation with your cache.

 

I was attempting to provide some general information for you and for other forum users and I believe I have done that. Continuing the discussion along hypothetical lines will not be productive.

[BlueRajah]

For clarity, I am not blaming the reviewer, However, he did not suggest I refer this upstairs and did not indicate there was any means to have this looked at by others or that there was an appeals process.

 

The email for appeals is at the top of the guidelines page. Every cacher should be aware of it, if they read the guidelines (which they say they do when they click the box at the bottom of the cache submission page).

 

It took me a minute to find it but he did submit it to a review, I counted 22 reviewers saying no, with no yes votes. Though there were a few recommendations for you to make it work by turning it into a multi, with a virtual first stage.

 

If you still feel that you are justified feel free to contact appeals, that is what it is there for. appeals@Groundspeak.com

 

from the guidelines

Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

[+Fort S]

Thanks GPSfun.

 

Point taken and thanks for clarifying on your part.

 

I live in Bermuda where it can be relatively difficult for tourists to travel as you cannot rent a car with mopeds being the only option (and very dangerous). Therefore when placing caches there is a desire to hide several in areas to help make it a more enjoyable experience for the Cacher. More specifically I had already placed a cache that was geared to be a TB hotel in a walled off small park in St Georges. That area gets the occasional cruise ship and there are few other caches that can accommodate TBs. When we were visiting St Georges we stumbled upon another, separate, walled off park that was an ideal spot for a cache and was a beautiful spot for cachers to visit. They would not typically have found it if not for the cache placement. When looking at the distance "as the crow flies" it is too close. However, to get to each cache requires you to take a route that avoids private property and would be farther than the dictated distance. Also, with regards to cache saturation the locations are distinctly different, are each walled off with specfic entrances, the cache sizes are different and the description of each all help to avoid any confusion or possibility of the two being confused.

 

I have provided the above information but there appears to be no flexibility. I request the reviewer to post for other reviewers and apparently the other reviewers supported the original decision. I am having difficulty with this given what I have stated above, what my intent is, that no one is being put in danger and that my motives are to simply have good caches with reason behind them for other cachers to enjoy.

 

The caches in question are: GC2CP40 and GC266ET (archived)

 

I want to reiterate that I know the cache reviewer is a thankless job and that the reviewer in question has been thoroughly professional. My issue is the strict interpretation of the rules and the lack of flexibility given the additional information and the intent.

 

I did not realize the distance rule is sacrosanct.

[+Fort S]

Thank you Blue Rajah,

 

I think it may be useful for other posters/readers to have some additional background on this issue:

 

I live in Bermuda where it can be relatively difficult for tourists to travel as you cannot rent a car with mopeds being the only option (and very dangerous). Therefore when placing caches there is a desire to hide several in areas to help make it a more enjoyable experience for the Cacher. More specifically I had already placed a cache that was geared to be a TB hotel in a walled off small park in St Georges. That area gets the occasional cruise ship and there are few other caches that can accommodate TBs. When we were visiting St Georges we stumbled upon another, separate, walled off park that was an ideal spot for a cache and was a beautiful spot for cachers to visit. They would not typically have found it if not for the cache placement. When looking at the distance "as the crow flies" it is too close. However, to get to each cache requires you to take a route that avoids private property and would be farther than the dictated distance. Also, with regards to cache saturation the locations are distinctly different, are each walled off with specfic entrances, the cache sizes are different and the description of each all help to avoid any confusion or possibility of the two being confused.

 

I have provided the above information but there appears to be no flexibility. I am having difficulty with this given what I have stated above, what my intent is, that no one is being put in danger and that my motives are to simply have good caches with reason behind them for other cachers to enjoy.

 

The caches in question are: GC2CP40 and GC266ET (archived)

 

I want to reiterate that I know the cache reviewer is a thankless job and that the reviewer in question has been thoroughly professional. My issue is the strict interpretation of the rules and the lack of flexibility given the additional information and the intent.

[Skippermark]

I'm not a reviewer, but to me, allowing caches to be placed that bend the guidelines is like opening a can of worms.

 

If a reviewer says, "Okay, I'm going to publish your cache that's 350 feet from another cache because there's a 100' gorge between them" someone else will say, "You published a cache that was too close to another, so now you need to publish mine because there's a 100' wide river between them."

 

Since there are many reviewers, I think it's important for them to have a common set of guidelines they follow. That way, whether someone's hiding a cache in the California, Florida or Germany, they will all follow the same guidelines, and hiders will know what is expected of them.

[+Fort S]

I'm not a reviewer, but to me, allowing caches to be placed that bend the guidelines is like opening a can of worms.

 

If a reviewer says, "Okay, I'm going to publish your cache that's 350 feet from another cache because there's a 100' gorge between them" someone else will say, "You published a cache that was too close to another, so now you need to publish mine because there's a 100' wide river between them."

 

Since there are many reviewers, I think it's important for them to have a common set of guidelines they follow. That way, whether someone's hiding a cache in the California, Florida or Germany, they will all follow the same guidelines, and hiders will know what is expected of them.

Skippermark,

 

I hear what you are saying and agree that a common set of guidelines needs to be followed. However, exceptions are made and should be made when it makes sense to do so.

 

From what I understand, exceptions are made when you have a natural obstacle in the way (river, ravine, etc) which makes absolute sense. In this case I was hoping to have flexibility given what I have described and what my intent is. A suggestion was made to turn it into a multi, but frankly multi's are not that popular and that is not our preferred option. I am not putting anyone at risk nor am I following an agenda. Rather I am trying to enhance the cachers experience in Bermuda by trying to place well thought out caches with good locations that also may serve an additional purpose (TB Hotel).

[Skippermark]

I have merged this topic and your other post since they were about the same subject.

[+tozainamboku]

The saturation guidelines are one of the few that actually give the rationale

The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider.

Now some may read this a question why power trails are allowed, but remember that the caches in a powertrail are still .1 mile (161 meters) apart from each other.

 

From what the OP has told us about this cache, it would be hard to see why an exception should be given. The fact that you live on a small island or that you want hide more caches that are withing walking distance of the cruise ship terminal is probably not a sufficient reason for granting an exception. However, in addition to the appeals process through Groundspeak, you could put forward you case to these forums (as you have now done). If you can convince enough people that this situation is unique and deserves an exception, it could help in your appeal.

. 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.

[+t4e]

I'm not a reviewer, but to me, allowing caches to be placed that bend the guidelines is like opening a can of worms.

 

 

 

ooh but what about the Swiss Cheese, isn't that bending the rules?

[GOF and Bacall]

The saturation guidelines are one of the few that actually give the rationale

The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider.

Now some may read this a question why power trails are allowed, but remember that the caches in a powertrail are still .1 mile (161 meters) apart from each other.

 

From what the OP has told us about this cache, it would be hard to see why an exception should be given. The fact that you live on a small island or that you want hide more caches that are withing walking distance of the cruise ship terminal is probably not a sufficient reason for granting an exception. However, in addition to the appeals process through Groundspeak, you could put forward you case to these forums (as you have now done). If you can convince enough people that this situation is unique and deserves an exception, it could help in your appeal.

. 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.

 

Now what made you think it was necessary to drag power trails into this? They have nothing to do with this issue. Other than that you aren't off mark on this. The proximity guidelines have been quite firm with few caches being given an exception.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

For clarity, I am not blaming the reviewer, However, he did not suggest I refer this upstairs and did not indicate there was any means to have this looked at by others or that there was an appeals process. I found that out on my own and talking to other cachers. My concern is slavishly following the rules without looking at the spirit or intent of the scenario and how this will enhance the caches experience. The concern is over two caches being placed too close to each other (I own both). The rule has been applied "as the crow flies" when in fact there is no direct route and both locations are very distinct areas, walled off with specific entrances and different cache sizes. I have provided this information but the justification is that exceptions cannot be made otherwise the rules become meaningless.

Just to clarify the bolded part.

 

The appeals process is clearly laid out in the Cache Listing Guidelines/Requirements to which each cacher must agree when they submit a cache for publication on Geocaching.com

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

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.

[GOF and Bacall]

For clarity, I am not blaming the reviewer, However, he did not suggest I refer this upstairs and did not indicate there was any means to have this looked at by others or that there was an appeals process. I found that out on my own and talking to other cachers. My concern is slavishly following the rules without looking at the spirit or intent of the scenario and how this will enhance the caches experience. The concern is over two caches being placed too close to each other (I own both). The rule has been applied "as the crow flies" when in fact there is no direct route and both locations are very distinct areas, walled off with specific entrances and different cache sizes. I have provided this information but the justification is that exceptions cannot be made otherwise the rules become meaningless.

Just to clarify the bolded part.

 

The appeals process is clearly laid out in the Cache Listing Guidelines/Requirements to which each cacher must agree when they submit a cache for publication on Geocaching.com

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

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.

 

You mean, like, right IN the guidelines? These are the same guidelines used by reviewers? Wow, whodda thunk it?

[+E = Mc2]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that your appeal has been made and denied. If the area needs another cache, then you will need to find a spot at least 528 feet away from the other cache or make it a multi. The excuse that 'Multis aren't popular' doesn't hold water. If you hide it, they will come if the area is special enough that you need to put a cache there.

 

Another suggestion if you can't find a spot that's 528 feet from the first cache is 'move the first cache'. Just a thought.

[+Fort S]

Thanks everyone for their input (particularly Tozainamboku and E=Mc2 for their approach). Looks like the distance issue will only be viewed as the crow flies and is sacrosanct.

 

For those who saw fit to throw the rules in my face, that is what I meant by finding this out on my own (I obviously should have been more clear on my explanation as that would have prevented some conclusions being jumped to...my bad). My point was I would have thought (given this is the first instance I've had to look at the appeals process) the reviewer might have mentioned the appeals process since I was expressing my disagreement with the decision.

 

To GOF and Bacali: I am trying to not jump to conclusions either as email is only a one way means of communicating, but it is hard not to think that sarcasm was intended and frankly was not helpful here. My apologies if I am misunderstanding you.

 

GPSfun, thank you for not over-reacting to my response to your post. Your point was well taken as I should have been more clear originally.

 

This has been a very interesting experience in this aspect of Geocaching and how the logic is applied to these scenarios. Definitely not one I wish to experience again and will endeavour to not go out of my way in the future with regards to this aspect of the game.

[GOF and Bacall]

Yup. I was using sarcasm. The point is that you have the answers at your fingertips. It says right in the guidelines that you said you read that you can appeal and goes on to tell you how. It should not be necessary for a reviewer to repeat what you should already know. The guidelines also tell you that the cache needs to be 528 feet from others.

 

I do encourage you to appeal the reviewers decision. You never know. But don't be surprised if they say no. It is very seldom that GS overrules the reviewer.

[+Frank AZ]

Since you decided to archive the first, I think that is the right way to go. From looking at and reading on the new one, that looks like a wonderful place to visit, and something that a lot of people might miss if it wasn't for caching.

 

One thing I'll do when prepping for a new cache placement in a congested area (most of the area around me!) would be to pull the nearby caches into google earth, and then measure out where a relative "safe to place" area would be using the ruler tool, and then on down to that area to make the placement.

 

Not knowing the area, but, looking via sat map, 32°22'52.17"N 64°40'35.08"W could be a potential viable place.

[Clan Riffster]

Hi Fort S, sorry to get in on this one so late in the game.

I feel your pain, as you have found two spots, roughly 400' apart, that really call out for a cache placement.

I've looked at both locations in Google Earth, hoping to see some kind of solution, but the image clarity there is pretty bad.

One of the answers you got was to move the micro. Is that possible? I really can't tell from the images how big the garden is.

If you could move the micro far enough away, while still bringing folks to the kewl garden you found, you could reactivate your TB hotel.

If not, I think you are out of luck. For the record, the proximity guideline is not sacrosanct. I've seen it bent a few times.

However, each time it was bent there was a compelling reason to bend it, which personally, I'm not seeing here.

I wish you luck!

-Sean

[+Fort S]

Clan Riffster and Frank AZ & NJ Girl,

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to post and provide your suggestions. Also, thank you for taking the time to investigate via Goggle Earth and to provide your perspective and opinion in a positive manner. This type of approach is much more positive and helpful versus repeating what others have said in a negative way. This type of response giving suggestions and insight based on experience is what I was hoping for when originally starting these threads. It is interesting to see how some people like to use a negative approach which really doesn't help nor are you inclined to put any value in their input. That type of approach frankly puts people off from using the forum.

 

Looks like I am out of luck on this one and an interesting lesson learned. Again, thank you to those who made the extra effort to help and provide some insight. If you are ever visiting Bermuda please feel free to send a note if you have any questions on caching here.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Fort S