Knowledge books don't tally with guidelines

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

Hi

Can somebody tell me why the Cache Listing Guidelines are not the same as the guidelines listed in the Knowledge Books?

 

I recently had a reviewer refuse to publish a cache until I had removed the name of a village pub from the cache description. He said it was part of the recent;y published new guidelines. But when I looked in the Cache Listing Guidelines they were last updated in June 2010 and I could find no such ruling.

 

The reviewer eventually got back to me and gave me a link to a line in the knowledge books which said you should not mention the name of a commercial company in a cache description.

 

If this is a rule why have the guidelines not been updated? My view is that taking this ruling to mean not being able to mention a pub name on a cache listing is a step too far. Village pubs are landmarks the same as churches. You pay money to bus train companies, car parks and toilets but nobody is going to suggest you can't mention these in cache listings. A pub is also an amenity which cachers would appreciate knowing about and it is ridiculous not to be able to mention its name.

 

Was this reviewer right to ask me to remove it? Or was he being over zealous in his interpretation of the rule? What happens when an event cache is held in a pub as they usually are?

 

Captain Bird's Eye

[+drdick&vick]

This could cause problems, as you say most meetings are held in pubs and the name and address of the pub is normally displayed.

A step to far methinks!

 

These are personal views!!

Edited February 14, 2011 by DrDick&Vick

[+Pharisee]

I thought that this had been sorted out years ago. Originally, when we only had US based cache 'approvers', mentioning pubs or indeed any commercial organisation was banned but as we got our own approvers, it was impressed upon our American overlords that the British pub was such a deep rooted and iconic part of British society that the ban on mentioning pubs, in the UK, at least was overturned. We've been able to name pubs on cache pages for as long as I've been caching so who has suddenly decided that it's now no longer acceptable...? One of the Americans or one of our own reviewers being overly officious?

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

Hi

Can somebody tell me why the Cache Listing Guidelines are not the same as the guidelines listed in the Knowledge Books?

 

I recently had a reviewer refuse to publish a cache until I had removed the name of a village pub from the cache description. He said it was part of the recent;y published new guidelines. But when I looked in the Cache Listing Guidelines they were last updated in June 2010 and I could find no such ruling.

 

The reviewer eventually got back to me and gave me a link to a line in the knowledge books which said you should not mention the name of a commercial company in a cache description.

 

If this is a rule why have the guidelines not been updated? My view is that taking this ruling to mean not being able to mention a pub name on a cache listing is a step too far. Village pubs are landmarks the same as churches. You pay money to bus train companies, car parks and toilets but nobody is going to suggest you can't mention these in cache listings. A pub is also an amenity which cachers would appreciate knowing about and it is ridiculous not to be able to mention its name.

 

Was this reviewer right to ask me to remove it? Or was he being over zealous in his interpretation of the rule? What happens when an event cache is held in a pub as they usually are?

 

Captain Bird's Eye

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

The name of a Pub is in most cases the first line of a pub's postal address! It hardly constitutes advertising!

 

CBE

[+The Blorenges]

Sometimes the context is what counts.

 

I think it's accepted in the UK that if an cache event is being held at a pub then it's OK to put the pub's name in the general description for the event.

 

For other types of caches...

 

If you put something like, "Parking is available in the layby 50yards past the Red Lion pub" I'd guess that might be fine.

 

If you put something like, "After you've found the cache you might like to call in at the nearby Red Lion pub which does excellent food" I'd guess that might not be fine.

 

MrsB

Edited February 14, 2011 by The Blorenges

[+Graculus]

The guidelines haven't changed but have been re-organised and are now in the Knowledge books. The guideline on commercial caches is the same. The UK reviewers discussed pubs and whether they could or couldn't be mentioned in a cache and decided that doing so did breach the commercial guideline. A pub is a commercial business and identified by it's name. It is commercial. The exception allowed is for events which are usually held in pubs so mentioning the pub name there is OK but we don't expect a complete description of the pub, the facilities they offer, the beer and current offers from the menu!

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

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

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+currykev]

I think there's something very fishy about this thread.

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

It seems now that groundspeek HAS updated the guidelines in the last couple of days so that confusion has been removed.

 

Its all a nonsense though! Why do we have local reviewers if not to interpret the intention of the guidelines in a common sense way. It seems ok then to estole the virtues of a nearby pub, providing you don't mention its name., but its not ok to say the cache is on the green between the Red Lion and the river. How daft is that? Especially as there is no way to moderate what people write in their logs.

 

I have a cache which is in the woods adjacent to a pub which owns the land. In my description I have acknowledged the kind permission of the landlord in allowing me to place the cache. By the way the rules are now being applied I would not be able to do that. Why can't it be left to reviewers to decide if a description is cynical blatant advert rather than applying a ridiculous rule that can be got around by anyone intent on advertising and severely hamper those who merely wan't to publish a good cache.

 

CBE

[+geohatter]

It seems ok then to estole the virtues of a nearby pub, providing you don't mention its name.

 

Not on any cache I review.

 

but its not ok to say the cache is on the green between the Red Lion and the river. How daft is that? Especially as there is no way to moderate what people write in their logs.

 

Mentioning a business when describing the location of the cache is OK as there is no agenda apart from directing cachers to the cache.

 

I have a cache which is in the woods adjacent to a pub which owns the land. In my description I have acknowledged the kind permission of the landlord in allowing me to place the cache. By the way the rules are now being applied I would not be able to do that.

 

If that's all you say then I'd publish. If you then went on to promote the pub then I'd ask for a re-write.

 

Why can't it be left to reviewers to decide if a description is cynical blatant advert rather than applying a ridiculous rule that can be got around by anyone intent on advertising and severely hamper those who merely wan't to publish a good cache.

 

It is left to us. We use common sense but in most cases people are being blatant in their violations so we have no choice but to rule against. The reorganisation of the guidelines was prompted by the fact that cachers couldn't make sense of them and have been known to argue the toss with the reviewers because their interpretation was different.

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer & Forum Mod for geocaching.com

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

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

It seems ok then to estole the virtues of a nearby pub, providing you don't mention its name.

 

Not on any cache I review.

 

but its not ok to say the cache is on the green between the Red Lion and the river. How daft is that? Especially as there is no way to moderate what people write in their logs.

 

Mentioning a business when describing the location of the cache is OK as there is no agenda apart from directing cachers to the cache.

 

I have a cache which is in the woods adjacent to a pub which owns the land. In my description I have acknowledged the kind permission of the landlord in allowing me to place the cache. By the way the rules are now being applied I would not be able to do that.

 

If that's all you say then I'd publish. If you then went on to promote the pub then I'd ask for a re-write.

 

Why can't it be left to reviewers to decide if a description is cynical blatant advert rather than applying a ridiculous rule that can be got around by anyone intent on advertising and severely hamper those who merely wan't to publish a good cache.

 

It is left to us. We use common sense but in most cases people are being blatant in their violations so we have no choice but to rule against. The reorganisation of the guidelines was prompted by the fact that cachers couldn't make sense of them and have been known to argue the toss with the reviewers because their interpretation was different.

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer & Forum Mod for geocaching.com

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

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

Well I aplaude your common sense approach, Geohatter, and would be delighted if this were the case but it has been made quite clear to me in the response I have received from Groundspeek and the reviewer who asked me to remove it, that it was no longer permissible to use a pub name in a cache description under any circumstances. CBE

[dodgydaved]

Plus ce change, mais plus c'est la meme chose []

[+keehotee]

..... but its not ok to say the cache is on the green between the Red Lion and the river.

 

We use GPSes - why would you need to tell people where the cache is?

[+Graculus]

<snip>Why do we have local reviewers if not to interpret the intention of the guidelines in a common sense way. CBE

 

We do interpret the guidelines locally. In the case of pubs we don't allow mention of them on cache pages because it breaches the commercial guideline but we do on event pages because the information about where the event is being held is necessary. That is an allowed exception

 

Chris

Graculus - Volunteer Reviewer for the UK

Resource site for the UK and Ireland - www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

Well I'm getting mixed messages here with some reviewers clearly applying a common sense interpretation and other applying the letter of the rule regardless.

 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the rationale here. Is the rule to prevent business owners from publishing their own caches as a form of advertising? This is what I am assuming. Surely a reviewer could spot that. Or is it to prevent a CO from indvertently giving one business and advantage over its competitors? Why might we be concerned if this was the case?

 

Nobody has yet answered the other question. What is the point of all this if a cacher can write in a log 'I'm off off for one of the one of the Dog & Ducks excellent pies and pint of OLd Thingumyjig' or whatever else he likes, with impunity?

[+Pieman]

It looks as though there isn't an agreed position on this, as two reviewers are interpreting the guidelines differently.

 

I think this is an area where common sense can apply. To disallow a cache for stating that parking is available next to The Rose and Crown/ MacDonalds/ WH Smiths is surely extreme. Disallowing advising cachers to go into any of them on other hand is reasonable. Similarly, there is no practical difference in setting a cache where the first stage is to, say, get a date from the side of a pub and saying in the listing that the date is on the Rose and Crown pub as anyone who goes to the cache site will soon see the pub name! This is similar to the approach adopted by the BBC.

[+redsox_mark]

While I can see a difference between simply mentioning there is parking at the Rose and Crown, and one which included their menu as part of the cache page, it seems the most simple and clear for all to simply disallow names of a commercial establishment. If you are providing coordinates I see no need to give a pub or other business name, you can say "permission is granted to park in the pub car park at XX coords", or "the cache is in the grounds of the nearby pub, the landlord has kindly given permission".

 

Otherwise the reviewers have to spend more time making judgements about exactly where to draw the line.

 

Having an exception for Events makes sense. Strictly speaking one could argue even that isn't necessary - the Event could say that the event is at the pub at XX coords and not give a name. But with an event attendees may want to contact the pub in advance; to see their menu, their policy on children, whatever... and that is easier if the name is known.

[+somloci]

This is not a local issue but let me ask your opinion.

I was thinking about a cache in Sofia that has been archived due to the guidelines about commercial caches. In that case the letter of the rule had been applied. I found the TB hotel in Vienna recently and thought the situation was pretty much the same, the cacher has to enter the venue for the cache. The guidelines say "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.", so shouldn't that cache be archived?

I do NOT want to have it archived as it is a great cache and anyway, why I should make caches being archived, just wanna know your opinion about them even if you're not likely to review any caches in Austria or Bulgaria.

Is there any difference in the rule/common sense applied in reviewing an event cache and a traditional in this case?

[+abanazar]

As others have said already, GPSr + coords really should make it unnecessary to mention the pub's name. What's wrong with referring generically to "nearby pub" etc. I regularly drive through a place where two pubs are virtually next door, but even then I'm sure you could distinguish e.g. a pub with "regal limbs" from "a large white bird".

 

Re disallowing pub names in logs, the Groundspeak authorities have far less control; I guess it would effectively be unenforceable, plus logs scroll down the screen eventually.

 

Naming pubs for events seems to be a reasonable compromise; plus, event listings have a limited life. So any pub landlords should get their adverts, I mean event listings, up nice and early then

[+The_Street_Searchers]

As others have said already, GPSr + coords really should make it unnecessary to mention the pub's name. What's wrong with referring generically to "nearby pub" etc. I regularly drive through a place where two pubs are virtually next door, but even then I'm sure you could distinguish e.g. a pub with "regal limbs" from "a large white bird".

 

But what's the point?

 

What's the difference between me saying - "Park in the Dog and duck" or "Park in the car park with the sign that has a four legged and two legged animal on it"?

 

Or "cache placed with permission from the owner of the nearby building with windows and a sign with a lion on it"?

 

Why not just call a pub a pub and if it is good why not say so...you are not forcing people to go in there!

 

If someone says that the Golden lion in the village does some good grub then I may or may not choose to eat there..I am an adult and able to make my own choices after all! I would, however, be grateful for the cache owner pointing it out, especially if it is at the end of a long series.

 

Not digging at the reviewers - I think they do a great job - more at the guidelines (Which I think need to exempt pubs :laughing:)

[+redsox_mark]

This is not a local issue but let me ask your opinion.

I was thinking about a cache in Sofia that has been archived due to the guidelines about commercial caches. In that case the letter of the rule had been applied. I found the TB hotel in Vienna recently and thought the situation was pretty much the same, the cacher has to enter the venue for the cache. The guidelines say "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.", so shouldn't that cache be archived?

I do NOT want to have it archived as it is a great cache and anyway, why I should make caches being archived, just wanna know your opinion about them even if you're not likely to review any caches in Austria or Bulgaria.

Is there any difference in the rule/common sense applied in reviewing an event cache and a traditional in this case?

 

I would not say anything. Unless the cache concerned me in some way (e.g. it required me to enter a commercial place that I did not feel comfortable), I would feel no obligation to report the cache. Many caches do not meet the guidelines, I don't feel it is my job to enforce them.

 

E.g. if the cache was inside a time share place and they wouldn't let me out until they gave me a 3 hour presentation I'd request it to be archived....

[+Pharisee]

edited

Edited February 15, 2011 by Pharisee

[+Pharisee]

Personally, I can't see what possible objection Groundspeak can have to a cache owner stating in his/her cache description that a pub you pass en-route whilst doing their circular series of caches is child/dog friendly and serves good food and acceptable ale. It doesn't impinge on Groundspeak's business so why should they worry? It's not a 'commercial' series of caches (assuming that the cache setter isn't the pub landlord), it's merely passing on useful information to prospective cache seekers.

 

What's now going to happen to all those caches that DO mention pubs? Are our under-worked and over-paid reviewers going to sift through 70 odd thousand cache pages and immediately archive all those that fall foul of this stupid 'guide-line' (or 'rule' if it's to be rigidly enforced) or will there be a dateline where all caches that were set prior that will be 'grandfathered'.

 

Fer crissake... it's a game. I have a horrible feeling that too many anally retentive people are taking it much too seriously for their own good. Get out there and enjoy the fresh air; find a box or two and if you pass a pub, stop off for a pint of lunch.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Pharisee

[+somloci]

Fer crissake... it's a game. I have a horrible feeling that too many anally retentive people are taking it much too seriously for their own good. Get out there and enjoy the fresh air; find a box or two and if you pass a pub, stop off for a pint of lunch.

I do agree.

[+drdick&vick]

Fer crissake... it's a game. I have a horrible feeling that too many anally retentive people are taking it much too seriously for their own good. Get out there and enjoy the fresh air; find a box or two and if you pass a pub, stop off for a pint of lunch.

I do agree.

 

Got to agree with this as well, far to many silly rules being made and aplied to the 'game'

There is a series in Sussex based on local pubs so that won't be expanded now.

May well be time to find a new hobby or something else new for this one.

 

This my own personal view

[team tisri]

As others have said already, GPSr + coords really should make it unnecessary to mention the pub's name. What's wrong with referring generically to "nearby pub" etc. I regularly drive through a place where two pubs are virtually next door, but even then I'm sure you could distinguish e.g. a pub with "regal limbs" from "a large white bird".

 

I agree with the previous comment that all this is a bit pointless. Let's face it, "a pub with regal limbs" is going to be something like The Kings Arms, the "large white bird" is going to be The Swan and so on.

 

It's not as if anybody is forced to visit the pub. I too appreciate knowing that a circuit passes a few pubs, if one of them serves food all day and it's easy to see why cachers with children and/or dogs would appreciate knowing that a particular pub welcomes children and/or dogs.

 

Comments like "The Swan serves good food" is obviously subjective opinion and crossing the line into advertising but surely "The circuit starts and ends at The Swan, which serves food all day" is merely a statement of fact and people can decide for themselves whether to partake of the food at the pub or take their own food, and if they do stop at the pub they can decide for themselves whether the food was good or not.

[+The Biffas]

What about this one GC2NNZ1 ?

[+keehotee]

As others have said already, GPSr + coords really should make it unnecessary to mention the pub's name. What's wrong with referring generically to "nearby pub" etc. I regularly drive through a place where two pubs are virtually next door, but even then I'm sure you could distinguish e.g. a pub with "regal limbs" from "a large white bird".

 

But what's the point?

 

What's the difference between me saying - "Park in the Dog and duck" or "Park in the car park with the sign that has a four legged and two legged animal on it"?

 

Or "cache placed with permission from the owner of the nearby building with windows and a sign with a lion on it"?

 

Why not just call a pub a pub and if it is good why not say so...you are not forcing people to go in there!

 

If someone says that the Golden lion in the village does some good grub then I may or may not choose to eat there..I am an adult and able to make my own choices after all! I would, however, be grateful for the cache owner pointing it out, especially if it is at the end of a long series.

 

Not digging at the reviewers - I think they do a great job - more at the guidelines (Which I think need to exempt pubs :laughing:)

 

And what's wrong with just mentioning the pub without using it's name? There can't be that many caches midway between two pubs???

[+Bear and Ragged]

What about this one GC2NNZ1 ?

 

"The Woolpack" is a fictional pub...

In real life the pub is called by another name.

 

[+MissJenn]

Thank for to geohatter, MrsB and to Graculus for their earlier replies. Well said.

 

The guidelines haven't changed but have been re-organised and are now in the Knowledge books. The guideline on commercial caches is the same. The UK reviewers discussed pubs and whether they could or couldn't be mentioned in a cache and decided that doing so did breach the commercial guideline. A pub is a commercial business and identified by it's name. It is commercial. The exception allowed is for events which are usually held in pubs so mentioning the pub name there is OK but we don't expect a complete description of the pub, the facilities they offer, the beer and current offers from the menu!

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

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

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+MissJenn]

Personally, I can't see what possible objection Groundspeak can have to a cache owner stating in his/her cache description that a pub you pass en-route whilst doing their circular series of caches is child/dog friendly and serves good food and acceptable ale. It doesn't impinge on Groundspeak's business so why should they worry?

We worry about cache descriptions eventually slipping down the Very Slippery Slope of commercialism and eventually becoming billboards for advertising (whether thru overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion, thru sheer volume of "little mentions here and there," or some combination of both). The best way to avoid falling down the Very Slippery Slope is to not get on it at all.

 

That said, we know that the local reviewers make a judgment call. We thank them and respect them for this sometimes very hard work. We know that the local UK reviewers may act differently from, say, the reviewers in the Czech Republic or those in the Pacific Northwest section of the USA (just random examples). I trust them to make decisions that are good for the local community.

 

Thanks again to the reviewers. You do good work.

[+MissJenn]

Fer crissake... it's a game. I have a horrible feeling that too many anally retentive people are taking it much too seriously for their own good. Get out there and enjoy the fresh air; find a box or two and if you pass a pub, stop off for a pint of lunch.

 

ROFL.

That's a good reminder. I am starving for lunch!

[+mumbo jumbo]

I have a cache which uses Streetview to gather info for the parking and final co-ordinates. One piece of info was derived from the % off sale sign in a shop window. The listing originally mentioned the name of the shop but this was declined by the reviewer as "clearly commercial". Cods wallop! It was simply a very prominent and clear appearance of a number I needed for the co-ordinates and I was helping cachers identify it. I was sorely tempted to argue the point but what's the point? Without reviewers the game falls apart. Why give them grief over the non-critical wording of a listing?

 

Still, they were wrong all the same

 

mj

[team tisri]

We worry about cache descriptions eventually slipping down the Very Slippery Slope of commercialism and eventually becoming billboards for advertising (whether thru overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion, thru sheer volume of "little mentions here and there," or some combination of both). The best way to avoid falling down the Very Slippery Slope is to not get on it at all.

 

With respect, why is it such a big deal mentioning the name of a pub that's near to a caching circuit when it's fine to say a cache requires the use of Garmin ® Chirp devices? The former provides a simple piece of information that if you're in the area, if you ran out of water, if you fancy a bite to eat or a beer, here's a place you might stop (other watering holes may be available). The latter provides a restriction that if you want to find it you need a Garmin unit.

 

Thanks again to the reviewers. You do good work.

 

Agreed, even if they do publish caches right before I have to go out

[+martlakes]

Hic!

Here's one of my caches. http://coord.info/GC1WHE5

Was it lucky it got published at all, or lucky all the names have disappeared!

Hic!

 

 

 

(Life is one big, continual slippery slope requiring balance. Trying to keep off the slope is pointless, dull, and leads to stagnation.)

[+Munkeh]

We worry about cache descriptions eventually slipping down the Very Slippery Slope of commercialism and eventually becoming billboards for advertising (whether thru overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion, thru sheer volume of "little mentions here and there," or some combination of both). The best way to avoid falling down the Very Slippery Slope is to not get on it at all.

 

With respect, why is it such a big deal mentioning the name of a pub that's near to a caching circuit when it's fine to say a cache requires the use of Garmin ® Chirp devices? The former provides a simple piece of information that if you're in the area, if you ran out of water, if you fancy a bite to eat or a beer, here's a place you might stop (other watering holes may be available). The latter provides a restriction that if you want to find it you need a Garmin unit.

 

why do you need the name, keep your eyes open for the local pub along the way

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

Nobody really answered my question satisfactorily. Why should we be concerned about mentioning a business name? The 'slippery slope of commercialism' doesn't wash. The whole geoachaing/groundspeek operation is a commercial enterprise. Its pages are littered with advertising. It's not as though were are trying to preserve amature status or media impartiallity. Why should we be concerned about 'the slippery slop of commercialism. '? i'm not saying its desirable but I'm not sure there is any reason to be paranoid about it. Can somebody enlighten me?

[+FuzzyBears]

Bluntly.. The pubs don't pay to advertise.... the rest do

[+keehotee]

Nobody really answered my question satisfactorily. Why should we be concerned about mentioning a business name? The 'slippery slope of commercialism' doesn't wash. The whole geoachaing/groundspeek operation is a commercial enterprise. Its pages are littered with advertising. It's not as though were are trying to preserve amature status or media impartiallity. Why should we be concerned about 'the slippery slop of commercialism. '? i'm not saying its desirable but I'm not sure there is any reason to be paranoid about it. Can somebody enlighten me?

 

You said it yourself. Groundspeak is a commercial enterprise - why should they hand out free advertising?

Groundspeak isn't geocaching, it's a provider of a specific service - one whose T's and C's we all willingly signed up to when we created accounts.

And most of us are more than happy to play the game the way they ask us to!

Those who aren't are presumably happy to go and play elsewhere.

Edited February 16, 2011 by keehotee

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

Hang on a minute, keehotee. Get off your high horse. We are not talking about handing out free advertising here. We are talking in the context of mentioning a pub's name in a cache description. We are also not talking about not honouring the terms and condiditions we signed up to either. We are talking about a different interperatation of the guidelines from that which has hitherto been applied and different wording of the guidelines. We all accept that we are bound to do whatever Groundspeak tells us to do if we wish to continue to use its services. That is why I immediately removed the Pub name from the cache listing when I was asked to by the reviewer but that is no reason not to discuss the rationale on here which I would have thought is one of the reasons for having a forum.

[+Pharisee]

We are talking about a different interperatation of the guidelines from that which has hitherto been applied and different wording of the guidelines.

I have to agree... The way in which the reviewers seem to be 'cracking down' on mentioning pub names in the cache description does seem to be a considerable shift in policy. There are many currently active caches that mention pub names in the caches description, some of mine that are less than a year old among them. They were perfectly acceptable to the reviewers when they were submitted a few months ago, what's actually changed that would make them unacceptable now?

As I asked earlier, but got no answer, are the reviewers going to trawl through all caches, searching for pub names or are those caches going to be left alone and the apparently revised policy only applied to new listings?

[+abanazar]

...We are not talking about handing out free advertising here...

Q: When does mentioning a commercial premises cross the line between giving a 'namecheck' vs advertising? A: It's subjective. To make the Reviewers' work (freely given) easier in this respect, so they don't even have to consider the question (Events excepted), I am quite happy to use 'nearby pub' and its variants instead of explicitly naming the premises. It is so easy for me to do the former, it makes one part of a Reviewer's job easier, plus it makes a Finder's task no harder (if they can't find a pub in front of them without being given its name, they might have the wrong hobby ). I can still provide practical and impartial information about the 'establishment near the coords' (such as food available, children welcome, etc.).

 

If this is different guidance to before, I can live with it; other guidelines affect me more than this one.

 

I fear that there's an annual Event held near me that is still going to have to renamed, however, to "Mine's an Irish Black Stout"

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

Followed to it's logical conclusion, all the 'Sidetracked' caches and all the 'Bus Stop' caches would also have to be removed as they suggest that you arrive by train or bus which are all run by commercial companies.

[+keehotee]

Followed to it's logical conclusion, all the 'Sidetracked' caches and all the 'Bus Stop' caches would also have to be removed as they suggest that you arrive by train or bus which are all run by commercial companies.

 

AFAIK nobody's suggesting you can't mention "the pub" or "the bus" - but I suspect if you hid a series of caches at bus stops and named them Stagecoach Bus Stop 1 to 10 the reviewer might ask you to reconsider....?

[+Captain Bird's Eye]

Well one reviewer further back in this thread said he would not publish a cache which extolled the virtues of a pub even if it didn't mention its name. The Bus Stop cacches round here do have the bus routes in their names.

[+Master Mariner]

Hmmm... This one is less than a year old and got through the system. Perhaps it was the craft mis-spelling of the pub's name that fooled the reviewers!!!! The reviewers appear to be consistent in their inconsistencies!!!

[+abanazar]

Followed to it's logical conclusion...

Suddenly I can see why you might be concerned with logical conclusions. Not only will this put paid to any forthcoming Fish Fingers series, but I've heard that the next product placement guideline will be clamping down on usernames. Only the best for the Captain's table ...

[+Happy Humphrey]

Q: When does mentioning a commercial premises cross the line between giving a 'namecheck' vs advertising? A: It's subjective.

Yes, it's subjective. The problem with trying to make it objective is that it doesn't really save the reviewers any work (because they still have to read the cache description anyway), and the only reliable method is to eliminate any mention of the pub altogether. As we've seen, that doesn't really work either.

 

Miss Jenn's "slippery slope" is a fallacy; just because you mention a pub doesn't mean that the next person can say "Aha! Now pubs can be named so I can include advertising of my mate's pub as well!". The reviewers merely have to make a straightforward judgement based on the cache page wording and agreed local guidelines.

 

It's not hard to judge the difference between

 

"By the way, if you're hungry the nearby Dog and Duck provides meals and real ale."

 

and

 

"Present this cache listing at the Dog and Duck to receive a 10% discount", or "The Dog and Duck has great value food, and happy hour is weekdays between 5 and 7".

 

If I was reviewing; I'd allow the former as it's merely meant to be helpful and adds value to geocaching.com, whereas the others are clearly an effort to promote the pub business. All I'd have to do was explain that the wording gives too much emphasis to the pub, and goes into the realm of advertising. In any case, reviewers are hand-picked and should be known to have enough common sense to judge this sort of thing. It might be hard to define exactly where helpful information ends and advertising begins, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a (dog and) duck. In other words, if there's genuine commercial advertising in a cache listing you'll probably notice it quite easily.

 

Wasn't this the issue that caused all the trouble a few years ago and caused reviewer resignations? In Britain, pubs and countryside walks (/geocaching) are inextricably linked and it's a nonsense to ban any mention in cache listings. It's just a matter of getting the balance right.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

Watching this thread with interest as we have 3 caches in Mevagissey, one of which has in it's description not only the name of a pub, but a picture of the pub and a history of the pub.

This wasn't meant as advertising, but was included as the pub is of historical interest in the village as it used to house a pilchard press.

We mention it alongside the museum, aquarium, model railway and other attractions which people might like to visit while they are doing the series.

 

One of the other 3 caches is directly opposite what was at the time our sweet shop (now sold) and we specifically did not even mention the shop for fear that it would be seen as blatant advertising.

But if you can name a pub, why not name a sweet shop?

And if we then put a cache right outside each of our sweet shops and called the series "Sweet Success" or some other equally corny name, I would not expect it to be published, even if the name of the shop were not mentioned, as it would be a clear ploy to bring people to the door of our shops.

A cache can be a business advert even if it doesn't mention the business name.

 

It's a fine line but I think Happy Humphrey has it right, most people could judge when useful info has become blatant advertising. And it's not easy to draw up a list of which is which.

We have to leave those decisions to the reviewers and accept what they say as they are reading our descriptions with fresh eyes, and if they see 'advert' then others are also likely to think the same.

 

But a blanket ban on all pub names in cache descriptions? No. Judge each case on its merits.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Lovejoy and Tinker