Jump to content

Problems with posting reviewer


keithandlaura
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

<_< While out caching I came across a faux cover plate on a light pole in a parking area. What a neat cache device I thought and went home to make one for myself. Well after placing the cache in a similar enviroment I was heavily berated by the reviewer for creating a dangerous situation. She went on saying that this type of device give Geocaching a blackeye and brought possible suspicion on cachers for drug drop planting, vandalism,and utility terrorism. Was I wrong or did the reviewer over step her bounds? Some how I felt this was somewhat heavy handed. Any thoughts or suggestion would be helpful. Thanx
Link to comment

<_< While out caching I came across a faux cover plate on a light pole in a parking area. What a neat cache device I thought and went home to make one for myself. Well after placing the cache in a similar enviroment I was heavily berated by the reviewer for creating a dangerous situation. She went on saying that this type of device give Geocaching a blackeye and brought possible suspicion on cachers for drug drop planting, vandalism,and utility terrorism. Was I wrong or did the reviewer over step her bounds? Some how I felt this was somewhat heavy handed. Any thoughts or suggestion would be helpful. Thanx

My first thought is... Is there more to than story than what is in the original post. It sounds like there is.

 

My personal opinion is that if this is a magnetically attached cover plate I don't see the danger. We have a number of these hides around here and I prefer them to skirt lifters except for the wet log problem. Here they go by the names of 'silver plated' or 'shocked' in the title/description/hint.

 

Here's the caveat...many/most of the light poles have an opening on the side so that electricians can work on them. The mounting point for this is very distinct and the plate is held in by screws. They look very different from a household plate I typically see on a cache.

 

As for the reviewer...They have a very good reason to make sure that caches are appropriately placed and if they don't like hide then move on to something else. My suggestion is to respond back with an email that addresses their concerns. If they then don't change their ruling you can appeal to Groundspeak.

Link to comment

<_< While out caching I came across a faux cover plate on a light pole in a parking area. What a neat cache device I thought and went home to make one for myself. Well after placing the cache in a similar enviroment I was heavily berated by the reviewer for creating a dangerous situation. She went on saying that this type of device give Geocaching a blackeye and brought possible suspicion on cachers for drug drop planting, vandalism,and utility terrorism. Was I wrong or did the reviewer over step her bounds? Some how I felt this was somewhat heavy handed. Any thoughts or suggestion would be helpful. Thanx

 

The reviewer is acting responsibly by protecting the larger public image of the game so we can all continue to enjoy it.

 

You know those guidelines you claimed to read and understand before placing your cache? One of the first things those guidelines say is "there is no precedent for placing caches."

 

I suggest you read the guidelines, and make sure your next cache is more thoughtful instead of just a monkey-see-monkey-do copy of an idea that's been tired since 2007.

Link to comment

This is one of those situations that give GS a bad image. This question has been debated since long before I started caching and still TPTB have been unable or unwilling to make a call. These either do or don't violate the guidelines. The lily pad should make a decision, explain its position and then direct the reviewers to apply it in an even handed manor.

Link to comment

Did you get permission from the owner of the pole or owner of the parking area to place the cache? If permission was obtained and it's magnetic and not defacing the lightpole or encouraging someone to use a tool to access it I would say you have a valid argument to place one there. If you don't have permission I think you're argument is going to quickly fail.

Link to comment

This is one of those situations that give GS a bad image. This question has been debated since long before I started caching and still TPTB have been unable or unwilling to make a call. These either do or don't violate the guidelines. The lily pad should make a decision, explain its position and then direct the reviewers to apply it in an even handed manor.

 

Well said!

Link to comment

This is one of those situations that give GS a bad image. This question has been debated since long before I started caching and still TPTB have been unable or unwilling to make a call. These either do or don't violate the guidelines. The lily pad should make a decision, explain its position and then direct the reviewers to apply it in an even handed manor.

 

I don't recall any fence sitting regarding these containers. There is no guideline against them and I don't recall any argument that there is.

 

As the OP well knows, the reviewer questioned whether or not he had permission for this hide. That's a horse in a different garage.

Link to comment

This is one of those situations that give GS a bad image. This question has been debated since long before I started caching and still TPTB have been unable or unwilling to make a call. These either do or don't violate the guidelines. The lily pad should make a decision, explain its position and then direct the reviewers to apply it in an even handed manor.

 

I don't recall any fence sitting regarding these containers. There is no guideline against them and I don't recall any argument that there is.

 

As the OP well knows, the reviewer questioned whether or not he had permission for this hide. That's a horse in a different garage.

 

Permission required for a magnetic false cover. Not for a skirt lifter. That makes everything even and consistent. Got it. Thank you.

Link to comment

This is one of those situations that give GS a bad image. This question has been debated since long before I started caching and still TPTB have been unable or unwilling to make a call. These either do or don't violate the guidelines. The lily pad should make a decision, explain its position and then direct the reviewers to apply it in an even handed manor.

 

I don't recall any fence sitting regarding these containers. There is no guideline against them and I don't recall any argument that there is.

 

As the OP well knows, the reviewer questioned whether or not he had permission for this hide. That's a horse in a different garage.

 

Permission required for a magnetic false cover. Not for a skirt lifter. That makes everything even and consistent. Got it. Thank you.

If Briansnat is correct and complete in his post, this may have nothing at all to do with the type of hide, but only with adequate permission.
Link to comment

This is one of those situations that give GS a bad image. This question has been debated since long before I started caching and still TPTB have been unable or unwilling to make a call. These either do or don't violate the guidelines. The lily pad should make a decision, explain its position and then direct the reviewers to apply it in an even handed manor.

 

I don't recall any fence sitting regarding these containers. There is no guideline against them and I don't recall any argument that there is.

 

As the OP well knows, the reviewer questioned whether or not he had permission for this hide. That's a horse in a different garage.

 

Permission required for a magnetic false cover. Not for a skirt lifter. That makes everything even and consistent. Got it. Thank you.

If Briansnat is correct and complete in his post, this may have nothing at all to do with the type of hide, but only with adequate permission.

 

That being the case why the commentary on terrorism and the rest? My point is that if it was a skirt lifter the question of permission would not likely have been raised. So what is the difference between the two?

Link to comment

This is one of those situations that give GS a bad image. This question has been debated since long before I started caching and still TPTB have been unable or unwilling to make a call. These either do or don't violate the guidelines. The lily pad should make a decision, explain its position and then direct the reviewers to apply it in an even handed manor.

 

I don't recall any fence sitting regarding these containers. There is no guideline against them and I don't recall any argument that there is.

 

As the OP well knows, the reviewer questioned whether or not he had permission for this hide. That's a horse in a different garage.

 

Permission required for a magnetic false cover. Not for a skirt lifter. That makes everything even and consistent. Got it. Thank you.

If Briansnat is correct and complete in his post, this may have nothing at all to do with the type of hide, but only with adequate permission.

 

I know that we're not hearing both sides, but I don't hear that in OP's question.

Link to comment

The reviewer is acting responsibly by protecting the larger public image of the game so we can all continue to enjoy it.

 

You know those guidelines you claimed to read and understand before placing your cache? One of the first things those guidelines say is "there is no precedent for placing caches."

 

I suggest you read the guidelines, and make sure your next cache is more thoughtful instead of just a monkey-see-monkey-do copy of an idea that's been tired since 2007.

 

Quite possibly the worst reply, to any thread, on any forum, that I have ever read. Well done. You made a fool of yourself by berating someone who had a question about why they were berated, and only in the slightest of manners did you manage to address the OPs post.

Link to comment

The first line of the note from the reviewer originally is: "The location is fine, and it's okay to use a fake electrical box/panel as long as you have specific permission for it."

 

The cache owner then wrote to them via email saying they got permission, but then said: "I have taken down the cache". They then began to site several caches similar to the one they hid and others unrelated to the type of hide in issue here. I found it interesting that the cache owner said: "So what I want to know is do I just need to forgo telling you anything at all or just right out lie to you about any future caches?"

 

The reviewer responded via the cache page that they would be happy to list the cache and quoted the parts of the guidelines that say "Having all the relevant information up front during the review process will help ensure a speedy listing." The reviewer then pointed out that if they do lie to the reviewer, then their peers might report the bad hide, which is true.

 

There is no berating in the original reviewer note. 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.

Link to comment

The reviewer is acting responsibly by protecting the larger public image of the game so we can all continue to enjoy it.

 

You know those guidelines you claimed to read and understand before placing your cache? One of the first things those guidelines say is "there is no precedent for placing caches."

 

I suggest you read the guidelines, and make sure your next cache is more thoughtful instead of just a monkey-see-monkey-do copy of an idea that's been tired since 2007.

 

Quite possibly the worst reply, to any thread, on any forum, that I have ever read. Well done. You made a fool of yourself by berating someone who had a question about why they were berated, and only in the slightest of manners did you manage to address the OPs post.

 

Quite possibly the most hyperbolic reply, to any thread, on any forum, that I have ever read. Well, perhaps not, but it is excessive.

Link to comment

My first thought is... Is there more to than story than what is in the original post. It sounds like there is.

 

The first line of the note from the reviewer originally is: "The location is fine, and it's okay to use a fake electrical box/panel as long as you have specific permission for it."

Thought so.

Link to comment

The first line of the note from the reviewer originally is: "The location is fine, and it's okay to use a fake electrical box/panel as long as you have specific permission for it."

 

The cache owner then wrote to them via email saying they got permission, but then said: "I have taken down the cache". They then began to site several caches similar to the one they hid and others unrelated to the type of hide in issue here. I found it interesting that the cache owner said: "So what I want to know is do I just need to forgo telling you anything at all or just right out lie to you about any future caches?"

 

The reviewer responded via the cache page that they would be happy to list the cache and quoted the parts of the guidelines that say "Having all the relevant information up front during the review process will help ensure a speedy listing." The reviewer then pointed out that if they do lie to the reviewer, then their peers might report the bad hide, which is true.

 

There is no berating in the original reviewer note. 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.

Hmmmmm. That's a lot different than the OPs' version. Nice to have the facts. :lol:

Link to comment

All right lets get a few more facts stated,all I wanted was to understand why the reviewer approve 15 other caches and suddendly wanted the name and phone # of the manager at the location of the cache. I introduced myself with a Geocaching brouchure in hand and asked permission to place the cache. While I am new to the game I have found 200 caches without placing any for others to find. All take and no give does not sound fair to me. When you take in consideration the amount of time and expense to set up a new cache I could have just went on taking and forgo the hassle involved in placing a new find for others. The other caches listed in my plea were examples of caches placed without the same scrutiny as demanded of my entry. At no time have I questioned the reviewers authority to single out this listing but have only asked if the additional chatter on terrorism, vadalism, and drug trafficing was really necessary. I may be new at this but at 58 years old I do not feel that I was treated in a fair manner. Also why is this forum so rough me simply asking for advice and guidance. So much for brotherly love!!!

Link to comment

If you're 58 years old, one would hope that you have thick enough skin to handle some rejection at this point in your life.

 

You didn't like the answer the reviewer gave you, and then retorted with, "So what I want to know is do I just need to forgo telling you anything at all or just right out lie to you about any future caches?" What did you expect them to do? Roll over.

Link to comment

All right lets get a few more facts stated,all I wanted was to understand why the reviewer approve 15 other caches and suddendly wanted the name and phone # of the manager at the location of the cache.

Maybe because the other 15 caches did not raise any issues which didn't permit the reviewer to make the normal assumption of adequate permission?
I introduced myself with a Geocaching brouchure in hand and asked permission to place the cache. While I am new to the game I have found 200 caches without placing any for others to find. All take and no give does not sound fair to me. When you take in consideration the amount of time and expense to set up a new cache I could have just went on taking and forgo the hassle involved in placing a new find for others.
Yes, it is not fair for you to take your cache out of play after getting permission for it. Why not just answer the question with the permission details, see your cache published, and enjoy the logs?
The other caches listed in my plea were examples of caches placed without the same scrutiny as demanded of my entry.
Owners who feel they've been wronged are one of the reviewer team's primary sources for calling out problematic cache placements. Mixed in with those, however, are caches that are not on point because the owner didn't appreciate the distinctions under the listing guidelines.
At no time have I questioned the reviewers authority to single out this listing but have only asked if the additional chatter on terrorism, vadalism, and drug trafficing was really necessary. I may be new at this but at 58 years old I do not feel that I was treated in a fair manner. Also why is this forum so rough me simply asking for advice and guidance. So much for brotherly love!!!

You did not fairly characterize the reviewer's explanation of why the relevant guideline is important. Had the explanation not been there, you'd likely be in here complaining that you were denied without a good explanation. Experience with bomb squad and law enforcement incidents over the past ten years helps to explain many of the listing guidelines.

 

My suggestion: provide the cache permission details, and see your cache published. You're overreacting. Like your reviewer said, she'd be delighted press the publish button. That's what we do, and what makes reviewers happy. Unpublished caches and complaint threads in the forums aren't why we volunteer our time.

Link to comment

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:

It's your ball and you can take it with you. You must do what is comfortable for you. I'm sure at some point someone else will step in and place a lamp post hide in that parking lot (or if we're lucky, an ammo can nearby). :)

Link to comment

The first line of the note from the reviewer originally is: "The location is fine, and it's okay to use a fake electrical box/panel as long as you have specific permission for it."

 

Is this request unique to this particular reviewer or are all reviewers now verifying that explicit permission has been asked for and received (for caches in parking lots and shopping plazas)?

Link to comment

The reviewer is acting responsibly by protecting the larger public image of the game so we can all continue to enjoy it.

 

You know those guidelines you claimed to read and understand before placing your cache? One of the first things those guidelines say is "there is no precedent for placing caches."

 

I suggest you read the guidelines, and make sure your next cache is more thoughtful instead of just a monkey-see-monkey-do copy of an idea that's been tired since 2007.

 

Quite possibly the worst reply, to any thread, on any forum, that I have ever read. Well done. You made a fool of yourself by berating someone who had a question about why they were berated, and only in the slightest of manners did you manage to address the OPs post.

 

Don't know about her's being the worst reply but i do agree that it wasn't appropriate for this thread. Her dislike for these types of hides doesn't have much to do with the OP's questions/concerns. For now, this type of hide is accepted by Groundspeak and that's what counts.

 

I do have to wonder about something else though,,

 

From the OP's first post:

She went on saying that this type of device give Geocaching a blackeye and brought possible suspicion on cachers for drug drop planting, vandalism,and utility terrorism.

 

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...

Link to comment

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:

 

You're not really giving anything back by placing poorly considered caches that violate the guidelines. If you want to give back, read the guidelines, and place caches that conform to them.

Link to comment

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:

 

In a bit over seven years I have 2,900 or so finds and 16 hides. I do not feel like I am a "taker". I live in a cache dense area. I would prefer that cache hiders spend a bit more time finding a location and placement that is worthy of a cache rather than placing a container in a seemingly random spot just to "give back" to the game/sport. The concept is noble but the implementation is often less than one might hope for. I hope you keep caching and that you consider placing caches when you come upon a location that inspires you. Giving back is an excellent goal. There is no timeline for doing so.

Link to comment

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:

 

I'm really confused why you would have pulled it if you had permission, when all you had to do is respond to the reviewer to say "Yup, I have permission for this placement". A simple note or email to the reviewer would have had your cache published by now.

 

That's really unfortunate that you decided to pull it and deprive people the opportunity to see the electrical box.

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.

Link to comment

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:

 

You're not really giving anything back by placing poorly considered caches that violate the guidelines. If you want to give back, read the guidelines, and place caches that conform to them.

 

+1

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.

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.

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.

 

But would the same questions and concerns have been raised if it had been a run of the mill skirt lifter? And if not what is the difference? A lamp post is electrical equipment.

Link to comment

<_< While out caching I came across a faux cover plate on a light pole in a parking area. What a neat cache device I thought and went home to make one for myself. Well after placing the cache in a similar enviroment I was heavily berated by the reviewer for creating a dangerous situation. She went on saying that this type of device give Geocaching a blackeye and brought possible suspicion on cachers for drug drop planting, vandalism,and utility terrorism. Was I wrong or did the reviewer over step her bounds? Some how I felt this was somewhat heavy handed. Any thoughts or suggestion would be helpful. Thanx

 

The reviewer is acting responsibly by protecting the larger public image of the game so we can all continue to enjoy it.

 

You know those guidelines you claimed to read and understand before placing your cache? One of the first things those guidelines say is "there is no precedent for placing caches."

 

I suggest you read the guidelines, and make sure your next cache is more thoughtful instead of just a monkey-see-monkey-do copy of an idea that's been tired since 2007.

 

I am in KeithandLaura!s area. Before you condemn them for "tired caches", you might be interested in knowing that we are a sparsely cached location so this idea is not in our immediate circle of ideas. He was attempting to bring a new idea to the cachers who have not had a chance for a find of this type. Why immediately assume that you have the privilege to call him tired?

 

I don't know where he tried to place it. I don't know any more than he had previously mentioned that he had found one and would like to bring one to his county. Wow. You were kind of cruel there in dashing his optimism in placing new caches for us to find.

 

I know the reviewer and I trust her judgement call. I just wonder if she could have better explained her position so that Keith wouldn't have felt the need to come here and be zapped for trying to find a more precise explanation of right and wrong.

 

Way to represent, Narcissa. Great job as usual.

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.

 

But would the same questions and concerns have been raised if it had been a run of the mill skirt lifter? And if not what is the difference? A lamp post is electrical equipment.

 

I'm pretty sure there is no guideline on dangerous caches, or else caches in nuclear reactors would not exist, so it doesn't make a difference if it is electrical or not.

Link to comment

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:

Some of us are hiders. Some of us are finders. Some of us do both very well. Some do niether very well.

 

Lots of ways to give back to this little activity of ours - you can:

  • Attend events
  • trade up or trade even
  • rehide caches well
  • teach others
  • Hold events
  • leave quality swag where there is none
  • Practice CITO
  • etc

Link to comment

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:

Some of us are hiders. Some of us are finders. Some of us do both very well. Some do niether very well.

 

Lots of ways to give back to this little activity of ours - you can:

  • Attend events
  • trade up or trade even
  • rehide caches well
  • teach others
  • Hold events
  • leave quality swag where there is none
  • Practice CITO
  • etc

 

Those are great ideas. Guess what? We don't have many caches/ cachers in these parts. Do you know what he spent this past weekend doing? He was calling the cachers that he knew to see if they would be interested in getting a club together. He has set a date and reserved a space for us to meet. Yes, he is a great asset to our caching community. That's why I'm even more saddened with a few of the responses he received.

Link to comment

Why immediately assume that you have the privilege to call him tired?

 

1. :blink:

 

2. I didn't call him tired. I called the cache idea tired.

 

You were kind of cruel there in dashing his optimism in placing new caches for us to find.

 

How did I dash his optimism? We all need to follow the guidelines.

 

I just wonder if she could have better explained her position so that Keith wouldn't have felt the need to come here and be zapped for trying to find a more precise explanation of right and wrong.

 

If Keith had represented himself faithfully from the start, nobody would have zapped him. The guidelines are clear and available for everyone to read. In order to submit a cache for publication, he had to agree that he read and understood them. I don't have much sympathy for a person who disregarded the guidelines, submitted a cache anyway, and then misrepresented the situation in the forum in order to garner sympathy.

 

The fact that caches in your area are sparse is not an excuse for this behaviour.

Link to comment

 

Those are great ideas. Guess what? We don't have many caches/ cachers in these parts. Do you know what he spent this past weekend doing? He was calling the cachers that he knew to see if they would be interested in getting a club together. He has set a date and reserved a space for us to meet. Yes, he is a great asset to our caching community. That's why I'm even more saddened with a few of the responses he received.

 

Being active in the community doesn't preclude a cacher from following the cache placement guidelines.

 

Do you know what's a real asset to a caching community? Quality geocaches that follow the guidelines.

Link to comment

Yes, he is a great asset to our caching community. That's why I'm even more saddened with a few of the responses he received.

I'm glad he's an asset in your area. It sounds like you could use more 'assets' in that area.

 

The OP lost the crowd here when he came out saying he was "heavily berated by the reviewer for creating a dangerous situation" when in fact he was just asked if he had gotten permission from the landowner. If he had come forward with what the real issue was, then this would have been a very different conversation.

Hopefully he finds out that the Reviewers (who are volunteers by the way) are willing to work with the CO to sort out any issues that may arise with new cache. They are reviewers, not critics.

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. Maybe there has been a misunderstanding between the two but I'm not seeing where he has violated any guidelines. What part of his original post led you to believe that he misrepresented himself? If anything, he was brutally honest with the reviewer when after his was denied the find as is, he asked, "next go 'round, should I leave info out?"

As I said, I don't know any of the details. However, I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that he misrepresented himself, failed to read the guidelines and came here to garner sympathy. What did I miss?

Link to comment

 

The OP lost the crowd here when he came out saying he was "heavily berated by the reviewer for creating a dangerous situation" when in fact he was just asked if he had gotten permission from the landowner. If he had come forward with what the real issue was, then this would have been a very different conversation.

Hopefully he finds out that the Reviewers (who are volunteers by the way) are willing to work with the CO to sort out any issues that may arise with new cache. They are reviewers, not critics.

 

Yes, I do understand that reasoning. Like I said, I know of no details. I haven't talked with him or the reviewer. I think that we have an awesome reviewer. She went above and beyond in helping me place my caches when I first started hiding them. I respect her. That's why I tend to believe that there has been some sort of misunderstanding.

Link to comment

The first line of the note from the reviewer originally is: "The location is fine, and it's okay to use a fake electrical box/panel as long as you have specific permission for it."

 

The cache owner then wrote to them via email saying they got permission, but then said: "I have taken down the cache". They then began to site several caches similar to the one they hid and others unrelated to the type of hide in issue here. I found it interesting that the cache owner said: "So what I want to know is do I just need to forgo telling you anything at all or just right out lie to you about any future caches?"

 

The reviewer responded via the cache page that they would be happy to list the cache and quoted the parts of the guidelines that say "Having all the relevant information up front during the review process will help ensure a speedy listing." The reviewer then pointed out that if they do lie to the reviewer, then their peers might report the bad hide, which is true.

 

There is no berating in the original reviewer note. 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.

 

 

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

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.

 

But would the same questions and concerns have been raised if it had been a run of the mill skirt lifter? And if not what is the difference? A lamp post is electrical equipment.

 

I don't know the percentage of course but it does seem that run of the mill skirt lifters are rarely questioned. Maybe they are but if not, and imo, they should be. Not because of them being dangerous or that they give geocaching a bad name, but because they are on private property. These need, again my opinion, more than just adequate (don't ask/don't tell) permission. I find it highly unlikely that the majority of these have been hidden with any kind of permission and am really surprsied that there haven't been more problems with property managers and/or law enforcement because of them..

 

To be honest, i would think the magnetic electrical plate type hide the OP submitted would be less apt to be questioned because it doesn't entail opening/dismantling/lifting covers to get to the cache.

Link to comment

What part of his original post led you to believe that he misrepresented himself?

These threads get a little convoluted. Let's sort it out...

 

... I was heavily berated by the reviewer for creating a dangerous situation. She went on saying that this type of device give Geocaching a blackeye and brought possible suspicion on cachers for drug drop planting, vandalism,and utility terrorism.

This doesn't sound like a reviewer since there is no problem with 'dangerous caches'. So mtn-man looks at the actual reviewer note:

The first line of the note from the reviewer originally is: "The location is fine, and it's okay to use a fake electrical box/panel as long as you have specific permission for it."

Then mtn-man adds:

The reviewer responded via the cache page that they would be happy to list the cache

The whole bit about "dangerous situations" was really in response to:

"So what I want to know is do I just need to forgo telling you anything at all or just right out lie to you about any future caches?"

I'm sure you'd agree that the OP shouldn't have hinted he might not be fully forthcoming in the future.

 

As for the "heavily berated"

There is no berating in the original reviewer note. 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.

The reason the reviewer followed up was just to verify that permission had been granted, NOT because the cache was "creating a dangerous situation".

 

Hope that helps.

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

[quote name='t4e' timestamp='1294802569' post='4583464'

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.

Link to comment

<_< While out caching I came across a faux cover plate on a light pole in a parking area. What a neat cache device I thought and went home to make one for myself. Well after placing the cache in a similar enviroment I was heavily berated by the reviewer for creating a dangerous situation. She went on saying that this type of device give Geocaching a blackeye and brought possible suspicion on cachers for drug drop planting, vandalism,and utility terrorism. Was I wrong or did the reviewer over step her bounds? Some how I felt this was somewhat heavy handed. Any thoughts or suggestion would be helpful. Thanx

 

I'm coming into this a bit late and there are a ton of replies before me. Some I agree with, some appear to be not much more than preteen school yard bullying and some that, in my opinion, should have NEVER been posted. Typical forum response, unfortunately.

 

You ask for thoughts or suggestions and here are mine. We simply do not have enough information to make a fair and impartial judgment (assuming of course that everyone would do that, something I have serious doubts about ever happening in any public forum where internet anonymity turns normally nice people into something completely different). My suggestion would be for you to contact the reviewer and politely ask for clarification on just what the exact problem is and how it can be resolved. That should get you farther than any amount of debate in a public forum.

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

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!

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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...