Jump to content

Problems with posting reviewer


Recommended Posts

you are right and I am wrong so it is back to taking and forgo the agravation of any further involvement in trying to give back. :lol:

 

There are over a million active caches out there. Probably another quarter million that were published and eventually archived. An awful lot of people are are obviously hiding caches without significant issues.

 

In your case the reviewer felt that permission was necessary for the hide. You claim to have permission. That would normally have been the end of the story. Cache published. Instead you chose to pull your cache and come here to rant.

 

Your reviewer is a geocacher. He wants to publish your cache. The easiest way to get it done if your reviewer sees an issue with your cache is to work with him to see how you can bring it into compliance. You chose not to take that avenue.

Link to comment

Ecylram, thanks. That makes sense if you read it that way. I guess I was only considering the actual submitting process and trying to find why everyone thought he misrepresented himself to the reviewer. Now I get why that was mentioned.

But still, i would have stayed out of it had it not been someone I knew that I consider eager to help grow our caching community in a positive way.

Seriously, we don't have but a few hiders here. Not many seekers travel through here either. Most of our caches are only gotten as part of the Delorme Challenge. I would love to see our little caching family grow. It gets expensive having to drive an hour out of town just to find a LPC. Lol

This thing will quickly blow over and everybody will forget about it. Then everybody can get back to actual geocaching. :)

 

Sounds like his caches are an asset in your cache-poor area. Hope more people start placing caches in your area!

First, let me tell you that you have posted several very helpful replies to this thread. Thanks for that!

 

Regarding the concept of "cache poor", though... if you zoom out to 10 miles on the map from one of the OP's hides, you will hit the 500 cache limit. That isn't quite what I would call "cache poor". And even if those from that area perceive the area as "cache poor" anyway, those of us from "cache rich" areas would be the very first to warn them about hiding parking lot caches (and similar) in an effort to "increase the cache wealth". Scatter fewer quarters instead of many pennies and you will be much more "cache wealthy" than many of us.

Link to comment

my question is why is a private conversation between the CO and Reviewer been posted in a public forum? :blink:

 

and please don't tell me its not private, because if it was all such correspondence would be kept on the cache listing

Because the CO asked the members of this board to give their opinion on the Reviewer's remarks. If he hadn't have asked, it wouldn't have been made public.

 

that doesn't answer my question, and is a totally flawed answer....he posted asking for help, you work with what he posted, if you don't believe him don't bother....HE is the only one that has a right to divulge that PRIVATE exchange he had with the reviewer

just because the GC staff has access to this exchanges doesn't give them the right to post it here, it should be for their eyes only

as i said before, if this information was meant to be public it would be viewable on the cache listing, but ITS NOT

 

what's next, if someone asks a question about problems using their CC to pay for PM, their CC number gets posted here?

 

and to answer the OP inquiry....NO, there is nothing wrong with the darn magnetic plate, is not addressed anywhere in the guidelines and those that insist on pointing them out please do us a favor and quote the said guideline

 

its just a case of a reviewers personal interpretation of what is right or wrong....and i know that from personal experience

 

can't do anything about it really, but it sure sucks that the same hide as mine in Austria gets to "live" and mine gets archived...but such is life

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

my question is why is a private conversation between the CO and Reviewer been posted in a public forum? :blink:

 

and please don't tell me its not private, because if it was all such correspondence would be kept on the cache listing

Because the CO asked the members of this board to give their opinion on the Reviewer's remarks. If he hadn't have asked, it wouldn't have been made public.

 

that doesn't answer my question, and is a totally flawed answer....he posted asking for help, you work with what he posted, if you don't believe him don't bother....HE is the only one that has a right to divulge that PRIVATE exchange he had with the reviewer

just because the GC staff has access to this exchanges doesn't give them the right to post it here, it should be for their eyes only

as i said before, if this information was meant to be public it would be viewable on the cache listing, but ITS NOT

 

and to answer the OP inquiry....NO, there is nothing wrong with the darn magnetic plate, is not addressed anywhere in the guidelines and those that insist on pointing them out please do us a favor and quote the said guideline

 

its just a case of a reviewers personal interpretation of what is right or wrong....and i know that from personal experience

 

can't do anything about it really, but it sure sucks that the same hide as mine in Austria gets to "live" and mine gets archived...but such is life

I've seen this said before. I have to ask... where are these privacy laws written down? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'd like a source for your claims of email privacy.

Link to comment

First, let me tell you that you have posted several very helpful replies to this thread. Thanks for that!

 

Regarding the concept of "cache poor", though... if you zoom out to 10 miles on the map from one of the OP's hides, you will hit the 500 cache limit. That isn't quite what I would call "cache poor". And even if those from that area perceive the area as "cache poor" anyway, those of us from "cache rich" areas would be the very first to warn them about hiding parking lot caches (and similar) in an effort to "increase the cache wealth". Scatter fewer quarters instead of many pennies and you will be much more "cache wealthy" than many of us.

Thanks for the comment.

 

You make a good point in regards to cache quantity version cache quality. I live in a very cache-dense area (1000 within 5 miles) and next to a city that is predominately LPC's and camo'd pill bottles in trees. There are a lot of caches, but not many really good ones. I have to travel several miles away to others areas that have less cache density but more of the quality caches.

 

Finding 10 LPC's are no where near as fulfilling as finding one at the top of a flag pole. smile.gif

Link to comment

Did the reviewer really relay this to the OP? If so, then i have to wonder why, when this type of hide is so widespread and, at least at this time, doesn't violate GC.com guidelines...

There's a whole lot of information we don't have, but one possibility is there may have been a permission problem with a previous cache at that location.

 

I agree, we still don't have all the information, and this is an excellent point I'm quoting (although just a possibility). Sure seems strange to ask for permission on the OP's 17th hide, when there seems to be tons of parking lot micro's in the area.

Link to comment

and please don't tell me its not private, because if it was all such correspondence would be kept on the cache listing

I"d just like to point out that since the cache page is not published, no one but the reviewers and CO can see anything on the cache page. So that makes it just as private as email.

Link to comment

I"d just like to point out that since the cache page is not published, no one but the reviewers and CO can see anything on the cache page. So that makes it just as private as email.

 

The fact that any reviewer can read it means that it is not "just as private as email."

 

Does the reviewer involved object to the messages being shared? The OP brought the reviewer notes into question when he stormed into here and made a public claim about the exchange. Unless the reviewer objects to those notes being shared, I don't see that there's any reason for this moral outrage about privacy.

Link to comment

Not all skirtlifters are alike, as there are a variety of locations where different situations could cause issues. You could divide them into categories, such as municipal, commercial, public, private, ect. and that still would not be good enough, depending on the history of the area. The faceplate hides also pose a different challenge than the skirtlifters, depending on the location and history of the area also. Neither are all the reviewers alike, as most are either sockpuppets of Keystone, or Mtn-man with individual differences. Instead of looking backward at why it wasnt listed, try to look forward to how it can be.

Link to comment
.he posted asking for help, you work with what he posted, if you don't believe him don't bother....HE is the only one that has a right to divulge that PRIVATE exchange he had with the reviewer

I take exception to this. The OP came in here, in this kinda public forum, ranting about unfair treatment by a Reviewer, casting that Reviewer in a bad light, and asking for our opinion. The OP intentionally misrepresented the facts of his correspondence with the Reviewer, in an attempt to curry sympathy, and to make the Reviewer appear unreasonable and unprofessional. At that point, the only way to dispute the claims presented by the OP was to post what was actually said, which was quite different from what was claimed.

 

If you prevaricate about something a Reviewer writes, you should expect to be called out on it.

 

Had the OP been honest with their complaint, their conversation would not have been posted.

 

And this thread would have ended yesterday.

Link to comment

Did the reviewer really relay this to the OP? If so, then i have to wonder why, when this type of hide is so widespread and, at least at this time, doesn't violate GC.com guidelines...

 

Reviewers can only act on the information they have. This type of hide may not be against the guidelines, but if the reviewer felt the cache could cause public alarm, she was right to question it.

 

This is true. I'm only going on the fact that it was a fake electrical cover on a lampost hide which seems to get approved most of the time without much question or hesitation.

 

When submitting a cache listing you are not required to specify the type of container used nor how it is hidden. If you have found a lot of electrical cover caches that were approved without question (I'm not sure how you'd know if they were questioned by the reviewer or not) it is likely because the reviewer acted on the information provided, and that information didn't include the fact that it was a fake electrical plate on live electrical equipment.

Link to comment

 

I've seen this said before. I have to ask... where are these privacy laws written down? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'd like a source for your claims of email privacy.

 

you're missing my point and it has nothing to do with email privacy

my point is that such conversations should not be made public by anyone else except the two involved

i wouldn't see a problem if the respective reviewer was here taking part in the conversation and they posted the facts

the reason those exchanges stay on the GC server and are accessible to all the other reviewers is so they can participate in any dispute or help with a decision, provide some feedback to the CO in case the local reviewer can't do so and so on, its not there to toss it around in public forums, as i said before it should be for their eyes only

 

if there's nothing private about it why don't we get access to see all the disputes and exchanges between CO and reviewers?

i'm sure some would make for very interesting read

Link to comment

The reviewer then pointed out that if they do lie to the reviewer, then their peers might report the bad hide, which is true.

 

Hmm.... so you are saying peers can actually review caches, and that peer review actually works even here at the lilly pad, even when the REAL reviewers fail (in the sense they miss something)

 

All cachers are encouraged to report questionable hides.

 

If a CO lies on the submission and there's no evidence of that when we review it there's nothing we can do but publish. It cannot be classed as a fail because we can't miss what isn't there to be found.

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

Link to comment
.he posted asking for help, you work with what he posted, if you don't believe him don't bother....HE is the only one that has a right to divulge that PRIVATE exchange he had with the reviewer

I take exception to this. The OP came in here, in this kinda public forum, ranting about unfair treatment by a Reviewer, casting that Reviewer in a bad light, and asking for our opinion. The OP intentionally misrepresented the facts of his correspondence with the Reviewer, in an attempt to curry sympathy, and to make the Reviewer appear unreasonable and unprofessional. At that point, the only way to dispute the claims presented by the OP was to post what was actually said, which was quite different from what was claimed.

 

If you prevaricate about something a Reviewer writes, you should expect to be called out on it.

 

Had the OP been honest with their complaint, their conversation would not have been posted.

 

And this thread would have ended yesterday.

 

i agree that he did not provide the real facts, still doesn't make it right to put that conversation here

it could have easily been handled by just making a post reminding him that he is not telling the whole story and just simply pointing out that based on their conversation the reviewer was correct in their decision

 

plain and simple without specifics

 

and i agree that if someone comes here asking for help they should realize that the GC staff knows the truth and there is no point in "reshaping" a story hoping to get compassion, if you want an honest opinion you should be honest

 

with that said, i don't think its right that he was called out with so much detail

Link to comment

The reviewer then pointed out that if they do lie to the reviewer, then their peers might report the bad hide, which is true.

 

Hmm.... so you are saying peers can actually review caches, and that peer review actually works even here at the lilly pad, even when the REAL reviewers fail (in the sense they miss something)

 

I know I contact my reviewer if I find a cache that has serious issues (near train tracks, under bridges, etc).

Link to comment

Granted, there was some stuff left out of the original post.

 

However, I think that the extra information about terrorism and such should have been left out of the OP's reply.

 

I have, for a long time, had problems with form letters from reviewers. They often send a letter which addresses several issues, some of which may apply to the hide, and some of which are totally unrelated.

 

Instead of picking the nearest form letter which seems to come close to addressing the issues in a cache, it would be nice if the reviewers would take the time to read the submission (which I'm sure they do), and reply to the issues with a simple, personal email.

 

Form letters cause more problems than they solve, as seen in this case. Instead of dealing with the issue the reviewer brought up, the OP had to deal with the rest of the unrelated stuff that was brought up in that letter.

Link to comment

my point is that such conversations should not be made public by anyone else except the two involved

i wouldn't see a problem if the respective reviewer was here taking part in the conversation and they posted the facts

Thanks for your concern. I think the OP is not worried about privacy, since the OP brought the issue to the forums as is their right. And, I can assure you that the reviewer is quite grateful for the explanations that have been posted by her fellow team members. This statement is based on a direct exchange between her and me.

 

Since the reviewers only wish to provide an accurate record and to point the OP towards getting their cache published, I would say that we've been restrained in the amount of correspondence that's been disclosed. Little purpose is served by a line-by-line proof. But, as various aspects of the reviewer's work are called into question, it's appropriate to respond with the facts about what happened.

Link to comment

Form letters cause more problems than they solve, as seen in this case. Instead of dealing with the issue the reviewer brought up, the OP had to deal with the rest of the unrelated stuff that was brought up in that letter.

The notes left by the reviewer were quite personalized and contained no material that could be considered off topic. It's not appropriate to label something as a form letter with "unrelated stuff" if you have not even read the communications. I have.

Link to comment

From reading the posts above, I don't think that he has disregarded any guidelines. He had an idea, got permission and sent it to the reviewer.

 

I don't want to call him a liar, but this doesn't pass the smell test.

 

If he had an idea, and got permission, then why would he pull the cache when the reviewer asked if he had permission? That makes no sense.

Link to comment

my question is why is a private conversation between the CO and Reviewer been posted in a public forum? :blink:

 

 

I can only guess. Maybe it has to do with the CO misrepresenting the reviewer's comments in this forum? Are reviewers not allowed to defend themselves when they are slandered?

Link to comment

Form letters cause more problems than they solve, as seen in this case. Instead of dealing with the issue the reviewer brought up, the OP had to deal with the rest of the unrelated stuff that was brought up in that letter.

The notes left by the reviewer were quite personalized and contained no material that could be considered off topic. It's not appropriate to label something as a form letter with "unrelated stuff" if you have not even read the communications. I have.

 

From Mtn-Man in post #14

 

"The reviewer simply quoted the guidelines, and then gave examples of what public officials might think of this type of placement if they were called out due to suspicious activity. The reviewer note is rational and informational and not condescending. "

 

This sounds, and I could be wrong (as it seems you're saying), like letters I have received multiple times when trying to get caches published - and which the reviewers have admitted are form letters. Many of these covered a variety of possible issues, some of which were correct, some were unrelated, and some were clearly not correct, since they contradicted something in the cache description or prior reviewer notes.

 

Since the original issue, as stated by reviewers who saw the conversation with the OP (and we have not, verbatim - just the summarized version by those reviewers - and no, I'm not asking to see it... that starts the whole "private conversation" argument), was permission, the extra stuff about the suspicious activity was not relevant in my opinion. And I could be wrong - you're saying I am.

 

It's very difficult to have an informed discussion about anything when each side only gives part of the details - OP left out some important facts, and the reviewers coming in saying "That's not what was said... other things were said", but leaving out details as well. I have to admit, the reviewers have been much more forthcoming in details than in the past. That is a major improvement. Please try to keep moving in this direction. Transparency makes it MUCH simpler to defend decisions, with much morepositive outcomes.

Link to comment

Did the reviewer really relay this to the OP? If so, then i have to wonder why, when this type of hide is so widespread and, at least at this time, doesn't violate GC.com guidelines...

 

Reviewers can only act on the information they have. This type of hide may not be against the guidelines, but if the reviewer felt the cache could cause public alarm, she was right to question it.

 

This is true. I'm only going on the fact that it was a fake electrical cover on a lampost hide which seems to get approved most of the time without much question or hesitation.

 

When submitting a cache listing you are not required to specify the type of container used nor how it is hidden. If you have found a lot of electrical cover caches that were approved without question (I'm not sure how you'd know if they were questioned by the reviewer or not) it is likely because the reviewer acted on the information provided, and that information didn't include the fact that it was a fake electrical plate on live electrical equipment.

 

Very true. But, and it's certainly not 100% accurate, there is a pretty good chance that it's gonna be this type of hide when the reviewer looks at the aerial view and sees that it's in a parking lot.

 

Hmmm, thinking about it just now,, I don't even know if reviewers ever look at aerial/satellite views so i might be totally off base. I figure standard maps probably show businesses when zoomed in but again, i'm not sure what all a reviewer looks at on a cache submission.

Link to comment

my point is that such conversations should not be made public by anyone else except the two involved

i wouldn't see a problem if the respective reviewer was here taking part in the conversation and they posted the facts

Thanks for your concern. I think the OP is not worried about privacy, since the OP brought the issue to the forums as is their right. And, I can assure you that the reviewer is quite grateful for the explanations that have been posted by her fellow team members. This statement is based on a direct exchange between her and me.

 

Since the reviewers only wish to provide an accurate record and to point the OP towards getting their cache published, I would say that we've been restrained in the amount of correspondence that's been disclosed. Little purpose is served by a line-by-line proof. But, as various aspects of the reviewer's work are called into question, it's appropriate to respond with the facts about what happened.

 

As I said above, I applaud the improvements made in this direction. Line by line would make things much more simpler to understand for anyone involved. The OP involved the geocaching community in this by posting the question. Maybe they (the OP) should post the entire exchange? This would clarify everything involved. Will GS reviewers/mods do it? No. I wouldn't expect them to. Like I said - they have made vast improvements in recent times to defending themselves with facts, as opposed to "Because we said so". Lets keep moving in a forward direction with that and become as transparent as possible. This eliminates many arguments, since everything done by the reviewers is said to be in response to the guidelines.

Link to comment

Why was one cache singled out by asking if you had permission?

 

Perhaps there used to be a cache there that was archived because the land manager didn't give permission.

 

Maybe this cache was hidden in an area that the reviewer knows for sure is private property.

 

Regardless, we're supposed to have "adequate permission" for all hides. just because we aren't always questioned about it doesn't mean we don't need it. I'm sure you don't get a speeding ticket every time you speed. Do you get mad at the cop for not catching you the other 364 days of the year?

Link to comment

Ive been told by my excellent reviewer that a cache I placed was too close to a telephone pole, and therefore had to be moved so in that anyone who would be looking for my cache in question would not look suspicious "or be considered a terrorist" snooping around or near (within 50ft) of a telephone pole. I thought this was harsh, and had I not stopped to think about what the reviewer was telling me, nor had I known he was a good guy from previous cache hides and dealings with him, i could have easily taken it the wrong way. I moved the cache to an abandon mailbox to the trailer park where my hide was trying to be placed, and he informed me it was an even bigger threat to not only the game but to myself by placing such a thing on FEDERAl property, and that getting explicit permission from the post office was near impossible. He told me however if I couldget permission for the mailbox hide I could leave it there. Reasonable, but I took his advice, and decided to move the hide.

 

I could have gotten all upset and posted on the forums about how he was irrational, and out of line by saying I was a terrorist or something like that, but I realised he was right, these were bad places to send unsuspecting cachers looking for a smiley that might be their last.

 

I complied, and we came to a compromise. the hide is now attached to a small piece of the old sign they had out front, and people have been logging it with no incidents as of yet, It is not exactly 50ft from the nearest telephone poles, but far enough in the middle of the string no one would be snooping around them, no harm, and I still hold my reviewer BoJaB in very high reguards. He is in my opinion the first and final frontier in keeping caches and cachers safe in my area, on his free time, and for no money, it takes a certain kind of person to deal with the mess of caches and cachers out there, and he is top of the line.

 

I am sure the OP's volunteer reviewer is as great a person, and the wording of the terrorist thing was similar to that of BoJaB's in my review, this person just read it the wrong way, something unfortunately very common via txt.

Link to comment
I can only guess. Maybe it has to do with the CO misrepresenting the reviewer's comments in this forum? Are reviewers not allowed to defend themselves when they are slandered?

 

that's not the issue here. every person is free to publish whatever they wrote themselves, but someone publishing something that somebody else wrote as part of a private correspondence is not a good thing, no matter what the circumstances are. secrecy of correspondence is a consitutional right/law in many european countries, while in the US it can be derived from the fourth amendment. this does not only apply to letters, but also email, phone calls, things like IM conversations and all other kinds of correspondence that the participants can "reasonably expect to be private". posting somebody else's private messages in a public forum is a wild violation of this fundamental right.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
I can only guess. Maybe it has to do with the CO misrepresenting the reviewer's comments in this forum? Are reviewers not allowed to defend themselves when they are slandered?

 

that's not the issue here. every person is free to publish whatever they wrote themselves, but someone publishing something that

s
omebody else wrote as part of a private correspondence is not a good thing, no matter what the circumstances are. secrecy of correspondence is a consitutional right/law in many european countries, while in the US it can be derived from the fourth amendment. this does not only apply to letters, but also email, phone calls, things like IM conversations and all other kinds of correspondence that the participants can "reasonably expect to be private". posting somebody else's private messages in a public forum is a wild violation of this fundamental right.

You mixed and matched a bit from the Wikipedia page.

 

From your link:

In the United States there is no specific constitutional guarantee on the privacy of correspondence.

In the United States, the reasonable expectation of privacy is primarily directed toward third parties and there is great leeway made for the direct participants. For example, if a correspondence is sent from one person to another either one has the right to publicize the details of the letter. However, if I intercepted a sealed letter between you and Groundspeak then I would have no legal right to disclose the contents of that letter even though the sender or recipient have that right. As a participant in the discussion, Groundspeak and the OP have the right to release details as they see fit (as long as they aren't slanderous or libelous).

 

As for the OP, instead of following Groundspeak's appeal policy, they chose to take the issue with Groundspeak public on the Groundspeak public forum and included details about the exchange between himself and the Groundspeak representative. As a natural consequence, a Groundspeak representative posted a response rebutting the false charges.

 

First, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" covering this circumstance in U.S. law.

 

Second, any claim to "an expectation of privacy" is moot as participating parties are allowed under the law to reveal details of 'private' conversations. (There are exceptions, but none are legally relevant to this discussion.)

 

Third, there is no expectation of privacy as the OP chose to take the discussion to a public forum that operated by Groundspeak and asked for input. It would be ridiculous to assume that a public plea for an explanation/help in a public forum which included information from the so-called 'private' exchange would not then allow for an informed response to that public request by the organization in question. Especially when the OP had the option to pursue this issue privately through the appeals process and chose not to use it.

Link to comment
..., while in the US it can be derived from the fourth amendment.

I'd love to see an evaluation of this from an expert in Constitutional law. While I am, by no means, an expert, as part of my job, I receive copies of relevant rulings from the Supreme Court. It is my understanding that the prohibitions expressed by the 4th Amendment apply to Government entities, not privately owned companies. I would think that there was no expectation of privacy in any correspondence that the participants post on a website that can be viewed by gobs of people. If such an expectation did exist, I would think that making public false claims about the correspondence would remove any expectation of privacy, as a reasonable and prudent person cannot expect to defame another, while expecting that the defamed person should not have the right to present evidence which would prove they acted honorably.

Link to comment

my question is why is a private conversation between the CO and Reviewer been posted in a public forum? :blink:

 

 

I can only guess. Maybe it has to do with the CO misrepresenting the reviewer's comments in this forum? Are reviewers not allowed to defend themselves when they are slandered?

 

 

did you bother reading all my posts, and the whole thread for that matter?

 

sure they are allowed to defend themselves, but i don't see the Reviewer involved in this case doing so, instead i see someone else acting on their behalf...which has been my point all along

 

and seriously, slander?....go back and read the original post, it was polite and barely asking for an opinion

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

 

did you bother reading all my posts, and the whole thread for that matter?

 

sure they are allowed to defend themselves, but i don't see the Reviewer involved in this case doing so, instead i see someone else acting on their behalf...which has been my point all along

 

and seriously, slander?....go back and read the original post, it was polite and barely asking for an opinion

Wouldn't it be libel? Not trying to fan any flames just curious.

Link to comment

Don't get me wrong... There are a few more besides mine but some aren't maintained .... But that's a whole 'nother bucket o worms! ;-)

I have maybe 12 and that's about my limit. I do take pride in them. I think they are placed well and highlight our community. That being said, I hope mine weren't the shining examples that he took back to the reviewer for her to reexamine. Mine are all above the guidelines but you never know.... Hahahaha

Link to comment

... but i don't see the Reviewer involved in this case doing so, instead i see someone else acting on their behalf...which has been my point all along

The issue was with how a Groundspeak representative performed their duties. Another representative of that organization is allowed to represent that organization in regards to a response.

Link to comment

This will be my last post on this topic since the "forum hounds" have unfairly treated the discussion in the wrong spirit. My original objection was raised by the fact that after logging 15 other caches with this reviewer I felt that a certain understanding had been established. The fact she requested a name and contact number to verify rankled my dander making me decide that no of this was worth the aggravation. I still have the deepest apperciation for the work of our reviewers and in no way thought that any of my questions should be regarded as ranting. As to the issue of privacy brought up in this forum it is only my opinion that the information was leaked only by the collusion by reviewers involed in this forum issue. That is a matter for Groundspeak to decide only and not by the general membership. I never ask the reviewer to be judged but only was asking if this was normal protocol so I may learn what is expected and normal in any future listings. If any one feelings were hurt by this topic disscusion I am trully sorry. I had never meet a real Geocacher that I would not want as a friend until I made the mistake of landing on this lily pad. My bad and it won't happen again!

Link to comment

That being said, I hope mine weren't the shining examples that he took back to the reviewer for her to reexamine. Mine are all above the guidelines but you never know.... Hahahaha

 

See? It's snarky comments like that one that will get senior cachers', moderators', and reviewers' hackles up. Either you're implying that you snuck a cruddy hide through the wire or that the reviewers have a personal vendetta for certain people.

 

It helps to read other threads first, scan through the forums, and get the lay of the land before you launch an accusatory thread of your own. Don't get butt hurt when you suddenly find yourself painted into a corner of your own making by people who have a sharp wit and a fast tongue!

 

When you come into a group, throw down a comment about an email you got, and then run off when things don't go your way, you're not helping your cause. People will take sides and put facts together... the reviewers and mods probably all know each other and share information.

 

Aside from the whole discussion on slander v. libel and whether or not someone's 4th Amendment rights were violated, some of this stuff is just funny.

Edited by lil_cav_wings
Link to comment

This will be my last post on this topic since the "forum hounds" have unfairly treated the discussion in the wrong spirit.

 

Your original post was written in bad faith, and that's where the problem lies. Can't get a cache published? The reviewer is bad! Don't get sympathy for lying on the forum? We're hounds. Right. :blink:

Link to comment

Did the reviewer really relay this to the OP? If so, then i have to wonder why, when this type of hide is so widespread and, at least at this time, doesn't violate GC.com guidelines...

 

Reviewers can only act on the information they have. This type of hide may not be against the guidelines, but if the reviewer felt the cache could cause public alarm, she was right to question it.

 

This is true. I'm only going on the fact that it was a fake electrical cover on a lampost hide which seems to get approved most of the time without much question or hesitation.

 

When submitting a cache listing you are not required to specify the type of container used nor how it is hidden. If you have found a lot of electrical cover caches that were approved without question (I'm not sure how you'd know if they were questioned by the reviewer or not) it is likely because the reviewer acted on the information provided, and that information didn't include the fact that it was a fake electrical plate on live electrical equipment.

 

Very true. But, and it's certainly not 100% accurate, there is a pretty good chance that it's gonna be this type of hide when the reviewer looks at the aerial view and sees that it's in a parking lot.

 

Hmmm, thinking about it just now,, I don't even know if reviewers ever look at aerial/satellite views so i might be totally off base. I figure standard maps probably show businesses when zoomed in but again, i'm not sure what all a reviewer looks at on a cache submission.

 

I agree that if a reviewer brings up a cache location on a satellite map and it appears to be in parking lot that it's reasonable to draw the conclusion that it's not an ammo can covered by a pile of sticks. However, I have seen a cache where an aerial view and even a visit to the published coordinate would leave one to believe it's an LPC and reading the DNF logs of those that came to that conclusion are entertaining. The cache is actually located in a tunnel the contains a creek bed that runs underneath the parking log.

 

I know that some reviewers do use aerial/satellite and even tax parcel maps to determine where a cache might be located. I had one that I placed awhile back and received a note from the review that it appeared to be in the middle of a farmers field and asked if I had permission. That was understandable as there is a Equine facility very close by and a large horse pasture across the road, but in this case the property is owned by a university that has a fairly liberal geocaching and access policy. When I explained to the review the nature of the property it was published right away.

 

I don't think that aerial photo or satellite maps are consistent and reliable enough to draw any reasonable conclusions about cache placements. There are many places in the world where they are woefully inadequate. For example, try to determine anything about the cache on this satellite image. If you zoom in once you'll just see more clouds. Zoom in twice and satellite imagery is not available.

 

costa_rica_clouds.jpg

Link to comment

FireRef, your discussion about "form letters" is off-topic for this thread. If you wish to discuss that issue, there are other avenues for that discussion. Thanks.

Why is this off-topic? Whenever someone starts a thread complaining about unfair treatment from a reviewer, one possibility is that there was a misunderstanding of correspondence they received from the reviewer. Often it has to do with sections of the guidelines the reviewer quotes - which may not always make sense to the cache owner if there are portions in the section quoted which either don't apply to their cache or which the cache already comply with. So they often miss the key issue with their own cache and feel that they are being singled out while others are allow a pass on these same guidelines. FireRef feels that the use of "form letters" that quote whole sections of the guidelines without explanation of how they apply to a particular case results in more upset cache owners and more thread like this. I personally believe that this issue has been discussed before and that reviewers are aware of it and are attempting to be more specific in their emails now. However given the workload there are bound to still be cases where a misunderstanding will occur.

Link to comment
..., while in the US it can be derived from the fourth amendment.

I'd love to see an evaluation of this from an expert in Constitutional law. While I am, by no means, an expert, as part of my job, I receive copies of relevant rulings from the Supreme Court. It is my understanding that the prohibitions expressed by the 4th Amendment apply to Government entities, not privately owned companies. I would think that there was no expectation of privacy in any correspondence that the participants post on a website that can be viewed by gobs of people. If such an expectation did exist, I would think that making public false claims about the correspondence would remove any expectation of privacy, as a reasonable and prudent person cannot expect to defame another, while expecting that the defamed person should not have the right to present evidence which would prove they acted honorably.

 

Not a Constitutional expert, but I do have a couple of law degrees.

 

The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. It has been read (along with the Fifth Amendment) to create a right to privacy, but that right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is against the U.S. federal government.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment applies the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the right to privacy, to state and local governments as well. But the Constitutional right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is only against government actors -- it does not prohibit invasions of privacy by individuals.

 

Specific statutes may provide for criminal sanctions against some actions by private individuals that might be considered infringements on privacy -- for example, the Wiretap Act (Title III) puts restrictions on wiretapping. There may also be private causes of action (lawsuits) for tortious invasion of privacy.

 

So, to answer your question, this:

 

that's not the issue here. every person is free to publish whatever they wrote themselves, but someone publishing something that somebody else wrote as part of a private correspondence is not a good thing, no matter what the circumstances are. secrecy of correspondence is a consitutional right/law in many european countries, while in the US it can be derived from the fourth amendment. this does not only apply to letters, but also email, phone calls, things like IM conversations and all other kinds of correspondence that the participants can "reasonably expect to be private". posting somebody else's private messages in a public forum is a wild violation of this fundamental right.

 

is not a true statement of the law. Especially the bolded part, because in the U.S. there is only a "fundamental right" against governmental intrusion, for all others, it likely only rises to a private cause of action.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

FireRef, your discussion about "form letters" is off-topic for this thread. If you wish to discuss that issue, there are other avenues for that discussion. Thanks.

 

Isn't this about communication between the reviewer and the potential cache owner. If you can't talk about communication how do you communicate?

Link to comment

That being said, I hope mine weren't the shining examples that he took back to the reviewer for her to reexamine. Mine are all above the guidelines but you never know.... Hahahaha

 

See? It's snarky comments like that one that will get senior cachers', moderators', and reviewers' hackles up. Either you're implying that you snuck a cruddy hide through the wire or that the reviewers have a personal vendetta for certain people.

 

 

Um, snarky?? I am so anti-snarky. He wanted to publish a gas station cache. He was denied (for whatever reason). He then told the reviewer of currently existing hides similar to what he wanted to place. One of mine happens to be a gas station hide. I have permission. The store owner gets a kick out of watching people look for it. However, for whatever reason he was denied, I would half way think he at least now has her questioning some of her decisions. I don't want my cache brought up in the conversation. I prefer to fly under the radar. I "lol'd" my comment... how is that being snarky?

In any case, you viewed it as snarky and perhaps others possibly could. For clarification, I was kind of poking fun at my own caches and had no intent of snarkiness....

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