O Ontario Reviewers, Ontario Reviewers, wherefore art thou Ontario Reviewers?

[+t4e]

yes, i know the reviewers are volunteers and do this in their spare time but....

 

my new listing its been waiting for 3 days now, well at least i think so, i can see it in my profile but who knows, maybe there's a glitch

they're always quite fast at reviewing so i can't help to wonder what is happening that hardly anything got published in the last few days in SW Ontario

 

perhaps someone can confirm for me that my listing is in fact in the queue

 

 

is there maybe a Reviewers Convention i am not aware of?

 

i sure hope they didn't all quit on us

[+Dr. House]

I'm guessing the answer has something to do with their personal lives. The fact that you felt the need to post something in the forums about a particular cache's length in queue speaks volumes to how efficiently our reviewers work within the listing timeframe. Many people almost expect a sort of "Instant Gratification" when a cache is submitted, when, frankly, they're just not entitled to that. We've just become so used to the fact that Ontario Reviewers process cache listings so quickly, that we believe that's always the way things will be. Assuming there isn't an outstanding issue with your cache that needs to be addressed before it's listed, perhaps you're seeing the exception to the timeframe here.

 

I know you've been patient, but I'm guessing this all gets worked out just fine with just a bit more time.

[+t4e]

yeah, i guess we've been spoiled

 

i don't think there's any issue with the cache itself, there are no notes on the cache page

 

i'm only wondering if perhaps due to some silly glitch in the system its actually not showing up in the queue, if it is in queue then i can to wait

[+t4e]

Assuming there isn't an outstanding issue with your cache that needs to be addressed before it's listed,

 

funny you saying that and few minutes later having the listing denied, did not see that one coming but i'm appealing the decision, its totally unfounded and only got slapped with a standard reply and no explanation at all...i wish the reviewers would engage in a more specific discussion and actually provide some useful feedback as opposed to just a C&P message

[+Dr. House]

funny you saying that and few minutes later having the listing denied, did not see that one coming but i'm appealing the decision, its totally unfounded and only got slapped with a standard reply and no explanation at all...i wish the reviewers would engage in a more specific discussion and actually provide some useful feedback as opposed to just a C&P message

 

Just playing the Devil's Advocate here, but I wonder two things:

 

1. Did your listing get a standard reply with no explanation as a result of something that is covered under the listing guidelines? (i.e. Was it something that you really should know better wouldn't fly?) From your statement above, it would seem that you were caught off-guard, but perhaps the reviewer thought otherwise?
   
2. Rather than immediately seeking to speak with Appeals, did you actively seek out the feedback you were looking for from the reviewer? In one of your other posts in this thread, you agree that we're sorta spoiled by their efforts in their volunteered spare time, so maybe a polite discussion might've yielded the information you seek (and perhaps common ground for publication).
   

 

Clearly, I have no idea what your listing entailed, so please don't misinterpret my statements as an attack or anything like that.

[+t4e]

its OK, i don't take your comments as an attack at all

 

i can certainly post here the whole cache page as it is now, but i am debating if i should yet or not

i did get caught off guard in a sense, because it never crossed my mind that the listing can be categorized as "commercial" and "soliciting", not when the listing is for a Tourist Attraction, and no, there is nothing that "i should have known better"

 

the comment i got back is that the "cache description appears to be promoting the site near by"

 

in that case any cache placed near an attraction can be viewed as promoting the site near by, like this one for example

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1BQRP

 

the reason i sent it to appeals right away is for two reasons

 

1st - because i don't think i have to keep going back and forth to get proper answer pointing out the "offensive" part in the cache description

instead of a standard note, more details could be included in the first communication so the CO knows exactly what to fix before resubmitting

 

2nd - because in the case of my Spaghetti Monster cache i was told the same thing, by the same reviewer, that is commercial and soliciting, no amount of correspondence back and forth with the reviewer yielded any resolution so i had to delete all the cache description and set it as it now, for crying out loud, FSM is a parody...what exactly is commercial and what would i solicit, donation of meatballs and spaghetti?

 

in any case the cache in question now contains purely a brief background on the building, the only reason i am not revealing the spot is so i don't give ideas to someone else

Edited February 9, 2011 by t4e

[+Dr. House]

Weird... every reviewer I've dealt with has told me exactly what's at issue with my potential listing in their reviewer note when they disable it and kick it back to me to work on further. I also think they've always gone so far as to point out the issues and suggest alternatives with all of my unlistable caches, so now I'm curious to know what your listing originally said (though I would suggest refraining from doling out specifics LOL).

 

Not knowing what you're purported to be promoting, I would imagine that a listing might get kicked back to me had I stated "This cache is located next to Sue's Spaghetti House. Cache is located in a tree..." whereas "This cache is located next to a local pasta restaurant. Cache is located in a tree..." would probably be OK. Clearly, a person will realize where you're bringing them on their own, and mentioning the location of a business isn't necessary. I'm just guessing, but I wonder if that's the case with your listing too.

 

My personal belief is that I have no right to have anything published on someone else's site that their trusted reps don't feel comfy with putting their name on. I would imagine that a VR must have a certain amount of pride for the geocaching website, wherein it almost becomes their personal business website, and thus that's gonna periodically conflict with our own pride for any potential listing we've put effort into. That being said, I have a hard time believing that there doesn't exist a common ground alternative to get a listing published without the need for Appeals, but it's clearly in place for a reason, so I hope you find a positive resolution to your listing.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Dr. House

[+CacheDrone]

FWIW, We do not allow any listings to be about the religion of "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

 

Hopefully appeals can help you out with updating the listing in question.

 

CD

[+t4e]

Weird... every reviewer I've dealt with has told me exactly what's at issue with my potential listing in their reviewer note when they disable it and kick it back to me to work on further. I also think they've always gone so far as to point out the issues and suggest alternatives with all of my unlistable caches, so now I'm curious to know what your listing originally said (though I would suggest refraining from doling out specifics LOL).

 

Not knowing what you're purported to be promoting, I would imagine that a listing might get kicked back to me had I stated "This cache is located next to Sue's Spaghetti House. Cache is located in a tree..." whereas "This cache is located next to a local pasta restaurant. Cache is located in a tree..." would probably be OK. Clearly, a person will realize where you're bringing them on their own, and mentioning the location of a business isn't necessary. I'm just guessing, but I wonder if that's the case with your listing too.

 

My personal belief is that I have no right to have anything published on someone else's site that their trusted reps don't feel comfy with putting their name on. I would imagine that a VR must have a certain amount of pride for the geocaching website, wherein it almost becomes their personal business website, and thus that's gonna periodically conflict with our own pride for any potential listing we've put effort into. That being said, I have a hard time believing that there doesn't exist a common ground alternative to get a listing published without the need for Appeals, but it's clearly in place for a reason, so I hope you find a positive resolution to your listing.

 

i wouldn't put here any specific details of my discussion

 

the comment i got back is that the "cache description appears to be promoting the site near by"

 

and "Please edit the page or contact Groundspeak..."

 

that's all i got as feedback

 

as for details...its exactly the same type of listing as this one, which i posted earlier

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1BQRP

 

the guidelines about commercial and solicitation are very clear, and none applies to my cache at all

 

Caches that Solicit

 

Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

 

Commercial Caches

 

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

 

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak.

 

FWIW, We do not allow any listings to be about the religion of "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

 

Hopefully appeals can help you out with updating the listing in question.

 

CD

 

but its not a religion, its a parody

 

thanks

[+t4e]

 

Hopefully appeals can help you out with updating the listing in question.

 

CD

 

sure did, cache is now published, in its original form

 

Traditional Cache

BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir

[+Keith Watson]

If that is what was submitted originally I see nothing wrong with it. I have been in there, and it is amazing.

[+Viajero Perdido]

but its not a religion, its a parody

If I happen to end up with the long census form this year and choose to play along, it's a religion.

[+t4e]

If that is what was submitted originally I see nothing wrong with it. I have been in there, and it is amazing.

 

yeap, not a word different

 

i only added the "Admission is FREE"

 

 

but its not a religion, its a parody

If I happen to end up with the long census form this year and choose to play along, it's a religion.

 

lol ...and why would they pick you?

 

i guess this days anything can be a religion

[+MontyFam]

We have the greatest reviewers in Ontario!

Last night the kids and I placed a cache at 6:00. We submitted the cache page just after 9:00. We recieved the "published" notification just before 10:00 and a found log just after 10:00. Wow thanks very much CacheDrone!!! I am treating this as a one off as I don't want to "expect" this to happen every time we hide a cache but we do appreciate it. Thanks very much for all that you do, reviewers!

[+CowboyNate]

but its not a religion, its a parody

If I happen to end up with the long census form this year and choose to play along, it's a religion.

 

lol ...and why would they pick you?

 

i guess this days anything can be a religion

FWIW, We do not allow any listings to be about the religion of "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

 

Hopefully appeals can help you out with updating the listing in question.

Not to dig up an old thread and restart something.... Cuz I'm not trying to, and no one should be thinking this is any kind of negative toward reviewers who do amazing work for volunteer pay...

(and I'm coming from an American's point of view re: religious freedoms, however different or not that might be from a Canadian's...)

 

But why would one religion (whether some view it as a parody or not) be singled out?

Does a policy like this mean that it could be decided that Islam was not allowed? Or Buddhism? Or Christianity?

(This was the point of FSMism; when some literalist Christians tried to require that their religion be taught in public schools, FSMism showed up to prove a point: teach mine and I'll be OK with teaching yours.)

 

I am _so_ off topic from what I came looking for... lol!

All I wanted was to find out peoples' opinions on camping in southern ON and whether Port Burwell provincial park was a nice place to spend a weekend or not!

I'll try other sites, like google, I guess. If I ever get off here... lol!

 

Thanks for comments,

Nate

 

PS: Wherefore = "why" or "for what" rather than "where". Yes, this is actually what drew me to the thread. rofl!

[+CacheDrone]

 

But why would one religion (whether some view it as a parody or not) be singled out?

Does a policy like this mean that it could be decided that Islam was not allowed? Or Buddhism? Or Christianity?

(This was the point of FSMism; when some literalist Christians tried to require that their religion be taught in public schools, FSMism showed up to prove a point: teach mine and I'll be OK with teaching yours.)

 

 

The decision about "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is not about religion. It is about Agenda. The idea of FSM on the whole is an agenda as you accurately stated and that I have made be bold text.

 

CD

 

note: I'm not going to discuss the religious content of any listing as that is not an aspect of the Listing Requirements and Guidelines. It is the Agenda portion that we review.

[+CowboyNate]

 

But why would one religion (whether some view it as a parody or not) be singled out?

Does a policy like this mean that it could be decided that Islam was not allowed? Or Buddhism? Or Christianity?

(This was the point of FSMism; when some literalist Christians tried to require that their religion be taught in public schools, FSMism showed up to prove a point: teach mine and I'll be OK with teaching yours.)

 

 

The decision about "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is not about religion. It is about Agenda. The idea of FSM on the whole is an agenda as you accurately stated and that I have made be bold text.

 

CD

 

note: I'm not going to discuss the religious content of any listing as that is not an aspect of the Listing Requirements and Guidelines. It is the Agenda portion that we review.

 

Methinks we do not see eye to eye on this.

I don't wish to get into any long discussions, so I'll post a simple "I wonder" statement and leave off at that.

 

I wonder if it's possible to separate Agenda from Religion so easily; religious beliefs are based on an agenda, often as basic as "Be good" and way past "I want my version of reality taught to my neighbor's kids." Political agendas are often tied up with religious ones. And vice versa. Ah well.

I can totally understand GS would like to stay out of agenda based caches (so as to stay neutral to all), I just question whether a passing reference to something is any more an Agenda than it is a passing reference.

 

I somehow feel I've still not plumbed the bottom of the original source of this discussion, which makes me feel like maybe I'm missing something that would close the discussion on the spot. However, I doubt anyone's that interested in spending the time to do so (me included), so heck with it.

 

Have a great remainder of the weekend!

Nate