Reviewers physically inspecting caches?

[+lemon16]

I had a reviewer physically inspect my cache. It was a 5 stage multi in a train station parking lot involving field puzzles. After resolving numerous issues I thought the cache was "perfect". I submitted it with a note saying:

Stage 2 IS within 150 feet of the RR tracks, however, they are separated by a fence.

The reviewer disabled the cache and reported:

While there is a fence between Stage 2 and the tracks, it appears to be temporary, judging by the Federal Rent-A-Fence signage.

The bolded text above means the reviewer must have been to the cache site. This was the first I've ever heard of a reviewer physically inspecting a cache. (Although it's possible he was there on personal business and took note of this fact.)

My question is: Do you know of any other instances of this, and why might a reviewer do it?

[+Touchstone]

My guess is that they were using Google Streetview judging from the comment. Another possibility is that they live or work in the area, so have more intimate knowledge of the immediate area.

 

Definitely unusual

[+pppingme]

Can you see the sign on google street level images?

[+narcissa]

It's not common, but I've known reviewers to notice issues while caching and take reviewer action on them. It sounds like the reviewer had legitimate reason to be concerned and was within his/her ability to just settle the matter once and for all by taking a look.

 

But uh, good luck having any future credibility with this reviewer after this. The lesson to take away from this is don't lie to reviewers!

[+narcissa]

My guess is that they were using Google Streetview judging from the comment.

 

Yeah, definite possibility as well. I think this is fairly common, especially when there's an obvious red flag for the reviewer to be concerned about, like TRAIN TRACKS.

[+StarBrand]

My guess is that they were using Google Streetview judging from the comment.

 

Yeah, definite possibility as well. I think this is fairly common, especially when there's an obvious red flag for the reviewer to be concerned about, like TRAIN TRACKS.

 

It was likely some kind of "street view" service.

 

But since the reviewers are cacher's just like all of us. it is just as likely that they are familar with the spot or it happened to be just within a a few miles.

 

I know our local reviewer lives a few hundred miles away. As does the reviewer for the neighboring states that I have caches in.

[+lemon16]

My guess is that they were using Google Streetview judging from the comment. Another possibility is that they live or work in the area, so have more intimate knowledge of the immediate area.

 

Definitely unusual

 

The sign can't be seen on street view. I suspect I know who my reviewer is, and if I'm correct, he WAS in the area because he got an FTF a few miles away the same day.

 

It's not common, but I've known reviewers to notice issues while caching and take reviewer action on them. It sounds like the reviewer had legitimate reason to be concerned and was within his/her ability to just settle the matter once and for all by taking a look.

 

But uh, good luck having any future credibility with this reviewer after this. The lesson to take away from this is don't lie to reviewers!

 

I didn't "lie to the reviewer". The fence surrounded a small retention pond and DID NOT appear to be temporary. I didn't notice the sign when I hid the cache.

[+hillbillypajeeps]

i personally know A reveiwer [deleted by moderator], he has used his prior knowledge of caches to get ftf's on several occasions, and wants all the answers to the puzzles so he doesnt have to do them himself. and me personally has denied several caches for petty things like too many briars or in a tree. but some are that way, a little power goes a long way.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Keystone
deleted personal attack and potty language in quoted post

[+Hemlock]

There's been a 3 or 4 times where I've physically visited a cache before I published it. In no case did I open the cache or sign the log.

 

One I remember clearly was just outside the perimeter fence around a small regional airport. The aerial photo showed an open field and I wasn't comfortable with a cache that close to an airport that would be in full view of everyone within 1/2 mile. The CO insisted that the location was OK and even suggested I go check it out for myself. I looked at the map, and while it was 60 miles away from me, it was roughly along the path I take to visit my paretnts, which I was going to do the following weekend. I told the CO to sit tight for a week or so. Sure enough, when I visited the site, the cache was actually in a newly landscaped area adjacent to a new business park. There were nice walking paths, benches and even a par course. As I walked up, I was thinking no problem; I'll go ahead and publish it. But I figured I should check the exact location of the cache...

 

... which turned out to be buried

 

Eventually the CO did get explicit permission from the city that owned the park, and it was published.

[+narcissa]

i personally know A reveiwer [deleted by moderator], he has used his prior knowledge of caches to get ftf's on several occasions, and wants all the answers to the puzzles so he doesnt have to do them himself. and me personally has denied several caches for petty things like too many briars or in a tree. but some are that way, a little power goes a long way.

 

Somehow I get the sense that there is more to this story.

 

Also, replacing the letter S with 5 doesn't class up the post the way you think it does.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Keystone
deleted personal attack and potty language in quoted post

[+StarBrand]

i personally know A reveiwer ***********, he has used his prior knowledge of caches to get ftf's on several occasions, and wants all the answers to the puzzles so he doesnt have to do them himself. and me personally has denied several caches for petty things like too many briars or in a tree. but some are that way, a little power goes a long way.

 

First off, I don't believe you. All the reviewers I know are of high integrity and work to strengthen Geocaching.

 

However, if you have actual evidence that a reviewer is abusing thier knowledge and authority - send your evidence to the contact address and if it holds water, action will be taken. Several reviewers have been removed over the year's for various forms of real or or implied abuse.

[GOF and Bacall]

i personally know A reveiwer [deleted by moderator], he has used his prior knowledge of caches to get ftf's on several occasions, and wants all the answers to the puzzles so he doesnt have to do them himself. and me personally has denied several caches for petty things like too many briars or in a tree. but some are that way, a little power goes a long way.

 

I think we can all tell who is what.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Keystone
deleted personal attack and potty language in quoted post

[+Touchstone]

...and wants all the answers to the puzzles ...

 

If "answers" you mean the actual location of the cache, then I'm not sure I see your point, since it's written in the Guidelines as a requirement to submit such information when you submit the Listing for Review:

 

Report the coordinates for the actual cache location and use the "Additional Waypoints" feature to input any other relevant stages or clues.

[+NeecesandNephews]

This was a legitimate post with an unusual circumstance, which I was interested in following, but my spidey sense is telling me to IBTL this one.

[jholly]

i personally know A reveiwer [deleted by moderator], he has used his prior knowledge of caches to get ftf's on several occasions, and wants all the answers to the puzzles so he doesnt have to do them himself. and me personally has denied several caches for petty things like too many briars or in a tree. but some are that way, a little power goes a long way.

Well of course he wants the answers to the puzzles, how else is he going to enter the coordinates for the final so the saturation rule can be properly applied? Same with the physical stages and final for a multi. I see nothing wrong with that. As for the FTF's, why shouldn't a reviewer be able to get a FTF? Especially if it is several hours or days after publishing it? Some areas the FTF is claimed minutes after publishing. As for denying a cache because of too many briars or in a tree, I would like to hear the rest of the story. Actually now that I think about it, I'm glad he denied it because of to many briars. Saves me the time and gas of going there just to see I want to put it on my ignore list.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Keystone
deleted personal attack and potty language in quoted post

[+Hemlock]

i personally know A reveiwer ..., he has used his prior knowledge of caches to get ftf's on several occasions, and wants all the answers to the puzzles so he doesnt have to do them himself.

We reviewers actually have a written code of conduct that makes it clear that it is perfectly OK for a reviewer to go after a FTF on a traditional cache as long as the cache is published before leaving the house. For multis and puzzles, we should wait a few days, but at that point the FTF is fair game.

 

... has denied several caches for petty things like too many briars or in a tree.

Interesting. I just looked at all of your unpublished caches and even the archived logs on a few of your published caches and I'm not seeing any notes such as this. Everything appears to be completely by the guidelines. As suggested, if you suspect a volunteer reviewer is acting inappropriately, send an email to Groundspeak and they'll take action.

[+The Blorenges]

...The reviewer disabled the cache and reported:

While there is a fence between Stage 2 and the tracks, it appears to be temporary, judging by the Federal Rent-A-Fence signage.

The bolded text above means the reviewer must have been to the cache site. This was the first I've ever heard of a reviewer physically inspecting a cache. (Although it's possible he was there on personal business and took note of this fact.)

My question is: Do you know of any other instances of this, and why might a reviewer do it?

 

There's another possibility:

 

Maybe another cacher was concerned about the location, took a couple of photos and contacted the reviewer. It happens.

 

MrsB

[+Printess Caroline]

I only know of one instance in which a reviewer physically inspected a cache around here. The reviewer's note on the cache page tells the story:

 

"Recently a new cache came into the review queue that was located within a library. I asked the owner to rework the cache so that part if it was outside and include gps usage. He reasoned that since this cache was inside a library and he copied it his should be published too. Since I was spending the holiday in the Adirondacks I decided to stop by and take a look at this one. Sure enough, it’s a book on the library shelf. No container, a required part of a geocache, no cache in the bush outside, no stage two, just a book inside the library. See photos.

 

Since this is not the cache I reviewed and published and that the cache owner intentionally deceived me during the review process to skirt the guidelines the only option I have is to archive this cache.

 

Reviewing geocaches is largely dependent on trust. Trust is a fragile thing and easy to obtain but once lost its hard to recover.

 

if you believe that I have acted inappropriately, you may send an email with complete details, waypoint name (GC*****) and a link to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com."

[+simpjkee]

I have never had a reviewer inspect one of my caches as far as I know.

 

I don't think that what the OP posted is proof that a reviewer visited the cache. I was thinking the same thing as MrsB.

[GOF and Bacall]

Even if a reviewer did personally inspect your cache I don't see the issue. Is there a reason they shouldn't?

[+Too Tall John]

...and wants all the answers to the puzzles ...

If "answers" you mean the actual location of the cache, then I'm not sure I see your point, since it's written in the Guidelines as a requirement to submit such information when you submit the Listing for Review:

Report the coordinates for the actual cache location and use the "Additional Waypoints" feature to input any other relevant stages or clues.

While this is true, what I want to know is how does hillbillypajeeps know their reviewer demands the final coordinates for puzzles (aside from the fact that, according to the guidelines, they need to) because while they have 9 traditional aches and an event, they have zero puzzles or multis.

 

In other words, they are speculating on hearsay.

...The reviewer disabled the cache and reported:

While there is a fence between Stage 2 and the tracks, it appears to be temporary, judging by the Federal Rent-A-Fence signage.

The bolded text above means the reviewer must have been to the cache site. This was the first I've ever heard of a reviewer physically inspecting a cache. (Although it's possible he was there on personal business and took note of this fact.)

My question is: Do you know of any other instances of this, and why might a reviewer do it?

There's another possibility:

 

Maybe another cacher was concerned about the location, took a couple of photos and contacted the reviewer. It happens.

 

MrsB

I believe the reviewer disabled it prior to publishing. I've had a reviewer do this to a cache they needed clarification on before publishing it. Edited March 5, 2011 by Too Tall John

[Keystone]

i personally know A reveiwer [deleted by moderator], he has used his prior knowledge of caches to get ftf's on several occasions, and wants all the answers to the puzzles so he doesnt have to do them himself. and me personally has denied several caches for petty things like too many briars or in a tree. but some are that way, a little power goes a long way.

1. If you cannot post without making personal attacks and keeping potty words out of your posts, don't bother posting.

 

2. I studied each of your cache submissions. Three were never published, due to (1) failure to obtain state park permission, (2) proximity to another cache, and (3) advocating a "pay it forward" concept that Groundspeak no longer allows. Looking at the published caches to see what review dialogue occurred prior to publication, I saw (1) a cache published after you unsuccessfully appealed to Groundspeak, who upheld your reviewer's denial of a "pay it forward" cache, (2) an event cache submitted on less than two weeks notice, which was published after you changed the date, and (3) eight caches that were published without incident, each on the same day when the listing was submitted for review.

 

3. Please specifically identify, by GC Code, the cache you submitted that was denied for "too many briars" and the cache that was denied because it was "in a tree." I assume that these listings are owned by an alternate account under your control.

[+lemon16]

...The reviewer disabled the cache and reported:

While there is a fence between Stage 2 and the tracks, it appears to be temporary, judging by the Federal Rent-A-Fence signage.

The bolded text above means the reviewer must have been to the cache site. This was the first I've ever heard of a reviewer physically inspecting a cache. (Although it's possible he was there on personal business and took note of this fact.)

My question is: Do you know of any other instances of this, and why might a reviewer do it?

 

There's another possibility:

 

Maybe another cacher was concerned about the location, took a couple of photos and contacted the reviewer. It happens.

 

MrsB

 

Other cachers could not have known about the location since the cache was not published yet.

 

Even if a reviewer did personally inspect your cache I don't see the issue. Is there a reason they shouldn't?

 

There's no issue with it. By doing this they are helping to further enforce the guidelines.

[+Coldgears]

I assume that these listings are owned by an alternate account under your control.

I assume he's full of poop (Or a slang term for poop)

[+NCreviewer]

I had a reviewer physically inspect my cache. It was a 5 stage multi in a train station parking lot involving field puzzles. After resolving numerous issues I thought the cache was "perfect". I submitted it with a note saying:

Stage 2 IS within 150 feet of the RR tracks, however, they are separated by a fence.

The reviewer disabled the cache and reported:

While there is a fence between Stage 2 and the tracks, it appears to be temporary, judging by the Federal Rent-A-Fence signage.

The bolded text above means the reviewer must have been to the cache site. This was the first I've ever heard of a reviewer physically inspecting a cache. (Although it's possible he was there on personal business and took note of this fact.)

My question is: Do you know of any other instances of this, and why might a reviewer do it?

 

I can think of only two occasions when I have done this in nearly 6 years of reviewing. Both times it was a minor detour on my way home to check the site so that I could help the CO get his cache listed.

Once the hide was slightly less than 150' from RR tracks at the edge of a soccer park. The CO replied that he didn't even see any tracks when he hid the cache. I knew they were elevated at least 12' at the nearby road, and wanted to see what the embankment looked like closer to the cache. As I suspected, the last 25' was a steep climb from the park area, and was completely overgrown with shrubs and briers. No chance of anyone wandering into the RR's Right of Way when looking for this one.

The second time I just couldn't understand the way the CO explained his unique method of urban cammo, and the hide was only a few miles from home. After seeing the placement I felt it complied with the guidelines and was able to hit the publish button as well.

 

In both cases I didn't bother logging finds as a player for several days after they were published. But as already pointed out-reviewers are perfectly able to be FTF's on traditional caches. But the odds are against us as we are still sitting at our computers when the insta-notification goes out. And someone is likely to be in the field already, and possibly nearby. Around here most routine hides are found within an hour of publication.

 

i personally know A reveiwer [deleted by moderator], he has used his prior knowledge of caches to get ftf's on several occasions, and wants all the answers to the puzzles so he doesnt have to do them himself. and me personally has denied several caches for petty things like too many briars or in a tree. but some are that way, a little power goes a long way.

 

Really-I don't see any puzzle or multi caches in your profile, published or otherwise. Others have already pointed out the guidelines for those cache types, and done a more detailed analysis of what you do have published and archived without getting them published. So unless you have some concrete details to back this up, you might want to consider retracting that statement.

 

Most reviewers I know like climbing trees. Some are even nuts.