Photo evidence required in cache submissions

March 15, 2011

Seen a few cache-quality type discussions recently, so here's my idea:

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1595657-quality-photo-evidence-required-in-cache-submissi

Trolls welcome :anitongue:

8.3k · March 15, 2011

Looks to me as a solution in search of a problem.

March 15, 2011

Trollllll !!!!!!

6.7k · March 15, 2011

Trollllll !!!!!!

Really? Why? Because they don't agree with you?

How about if you explain what it is that you want to address and how you think your idea will correct the problem. To be honest I don't see the advantage. Convince me.

March 15, 2011

I think the response originally covered matters. The image cannot guarantee that this will be the status quo for the cache, it may just be setup for the approval process and then can easily be changed. Although it sounds like a rock solid method, those who want to circumvent it will/have find/found a way to do it. I think that in terms of initial assessments by the reviewer combined with responsible finders had lead to a great system for maintaining caches that qualify!

1.5k · March 15, 2011

Sounds like it would create a lot of additional work for the reviewers and create extra work for the CO's without a significant benefit.

March 15, 2011

Don't really see the point. It's hard enough to get reviewers, adding additional requirements on them isn't necessary. It's up to the CO to ensure the rules are followed.

21.9k · March 15, 2011

So do I get to apply my personal definition of "quality" when judging the photos?

This will be fun, assuming that decisions are unappealable.

18.9k · March 15, 2011

Photoshop is my friend.

19k · March 15, 2011

(1) caches in plastic bags contrary to GAGB guidelines

What is the GAGC and where do I read their guidelines?

(3) caches perched precariously on a bridge over a major highway.

As opposed to caches perched securely on bridges over major highways?

March 15, 2011

(1) caches in plastic bags contrary to GAGB guidelines

What is the GAGC and where do I read their guidelines?

(3) caches perched precariously on a bridge over a major highway.

As opposed to caches perched securely on bridges over major highways?

Ok so I wasn't the only one that gave that a second look! :blink:

March 15, 2011

G&B - thank you for biting

Others - for GAGB see gagb.co.uk . In general, the point of the suggestion was to enable reviewers to spot unwitting badness (such as the examples given) at the time of cache submission. Extra work for COs? Yes, a little ... so what. Extra work for reviewers? Only if they bother to look at the photos which, in GS's year of cache quality, I might've hoped they would.

6.5k · March 15, 2011

Troll-you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Someone disagreeing with your OP is not a troll. An OP making an inflammatory statement and then walking away from the thread is a troll.

If someone deliberately wants to circumvent a guideline and play games with the reviewer, they can just submit bogus pics. This idea has no merit, and if there was a -1 voting option at feedback I would use it.

March 15, 2011

WG - the "troll" thing was a joke, *sigh*. And the suggestion is a counter to unwitting badness, not deliberate badness. Thus we conclude that your response has no merit and that if there was a -1 voting option I'd be using it - ha!

7.3k · March 15, 2011

As already mentioned, it wouldn't take much effort to circumvent a "photo" requirement and render it completely useless.

And maybe it's just me, but I assume that if submitting a photo or two with a cache submission could be useful, then the reviewers would have thought of it and implemented it already.

19k · March 15, 2011

G&B - thank you for biting

Others - for GAGB see gagb.co.uk . In general, the point of the suggestion was to enable reviewers to spot unwitting badness (such as the examples given) at the time of cache submission. Extra work for COs? Yes, a little ... so what. Extra work for reviewers? Only if they bother to look at the photos which, in GS's year of cache quality, I might've hoped they would.

Sorry, but caches in plastic bags, while "lame", are not against the guidelines. So, a reviewer sees that a newbie hider is putting out a cache in a plastic bag. He emails the cache owner regarding that, provides information why its bad. The hider writes back saying that his cache needs it to stay dry. The reviewer writes back again, explaining why a cache that needs a plastic bag to stay dry is not a good cache. Ad infinitum. No thanks.

4.1k · March 15, 2011

(1) caches in plastic bags contrary to GAGB guidelines

What is the GAGC and where do I read their guidelines?

(3) caches perched precariously on a bridge over a major highway.

As opposed to caches perched securely on bridges over major highways?

GAGB. Geocaching Association of Great Britain.

Their guidelines do not permit bagged caches: "Cache containers should not be placed inside a polythene bag." It appears they have worked with Groundspeak to implement these rules in their country: "Please adhere to these guidelines as they have been agreed with the Groundspeak and as such the Reviewers will refer to these when reviewing newly placed caches."

That being said, if there is a problem with a cache that would require reviewer action it can be easily identified by the community without a photo requirement.

Edited March 15, 2011 by mulvaney

9.3k · March 15, 2011

I think, in the context that I! is suggesting it, the idea would help.

I! is not suggesting a means to thwart that tiny percentage of cachers who would willingly subvert the system.

Rather, I! is suggesting a course of action which would target those cachers who use crappy containers and/or bad locations through ignorance.

Still, it's one I would vote against. The Reviewers have enough work to do without having to wade through photographs.

March 15, 2011

CR - yes. In the case of UK reviewers, I conjecture (in the absence of comments from them) that the photo-checking burden would be small compared to the MAGIC (permissions maps) checking burden. I've no idea how hard it would be on US reviewers.

March 15, 2011

Terrible idea. I hope it is never implemented. It will do nothing to improve cache quality since most "poor quality" caches meet the guidelines anyway. All it will do is create an impediment for people to hide caches and create a lot more work for reviewers. The result will be a dramatic decrease in the number of new caches. On the upside, a lot of people will be forced to improve their Photoshop skills.

March 15, 2011

Can you imagine what the reviewer for the ET Hwy series would have had to endure to weed through 3000+ pictures before approving them?

For some reason, that part of Alice's Restaurant comes to mind; "... 27 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was..."

Yikes.

8k · March 15, 2011

I think, in the context that I! is suggesting it, the idea would help.

I! is not suggesting a means to thwart that tiny percentage of cachers who would willingly subvert the system.

Rather, I! is suggesting a course of action which would target those cachers who use crappy containers and/or bad locations through ignorance.

Still, it's one I would vote against. The Reviewers have enough work to do without having to wade through photographs.

Sure. It basically stops the people who don't read the guidelines, yet check the box that says they read and understood the guidelines from placing a cache that may violate the guideline in some way that can be detected in a photograph.

So the first problem is that these people aren't going to read the guidelines to know they need to post pictures. They are going to hide a cache and then get frustrated when they can't submit the form because they didn't post pictures. (Or they can still submit the cache, but then the reviewer will have to hold off publishing while they try to explain that pictures are needed).

Then the reviewer has to determine things by looking at a photograph. They will find the picture doesn't show enough detail to make a determination, or the view of the surroundings is framed so you can't see this is on a bridge or near railroad tracks. The reviewers now has to spend time convincing cache owners to provide a "better" picture before they review the cache. Or they can accept the picture that was posted and assume the cache was placed in accordance with the guidelines. In some cases, reviewers may make the wrong decision because the photo makes the railroad tracks look closer than they are, or it may appear that a cache is buried when it is just sitting in an existing hole. The appeals process is going to be swamped with people complaining that reviewers are misinterpreting pictures.

1.2k · March 15, 2011

Can you imagine what the reviewer for the ET Hwy series would have had to endure to weed through 3000+ pictures before approving them?

For some reason, that part of Alice's Restaurant comes to mind; "... 27 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was..."

Yikes.

Wouldn't it be 3 pictures copied on 1000 caches.

March 15, 2011

I like Gorak's and Do6F's responses -- an impediment to lazy COs. Excellent!

Tozainamboku> It basically stops the people who don't read the guidelines, yet check the box that says they read and understood the guidelines from placing a cache that may violate the guideline in some way that can be detected in a photograph.

That's pretty much it. I'm not worried about the first issue you raise; good web page design can fix that. The second, about appeals, is interesting, but again I think can be mitigated by good web page design.

March 15, 2011

Can you imagine what the reviewer for the ET Hwy series would have had to endure to weed through 3000+ pictures before approving them?

For some reason, that part of Alice's Restaurant comes to mind; "... 27 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was..."

Yikes.

Wouldn't it be 3 pictures copied on 1000 caches.

I suppose technically they could use the same pic for all 1000 of them, since each cache was basically the same hide style, container, and view... :wacko:

9.4k · March 15, 2011

Can you imagine what the reviewer for the ET Hwy series would have had to endure to weed through 3000+ pictures before approving them?

For some reason, that part of Alice's Restaurant comes to mind; "... 27 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was..."

Yikes.

Wouldn't it be 3 pictures copied on 1000 caches.

Yeah, but the reviewer could just replace those pictures with his own to speed up the review process.

18.9k · March 15, 2011

Wouldn't passing a basic guidelines 'test' before placing caches work equally as well without further burdening the reviewers or hiders??

I proposed a simple one several years ago.....needs much more work.

http://wnag.net/checklist/Default.aspx

Edited March 15, 2011 by StarBrand

6.7k · March 15, 2011

G&B - thank you for biting

Others - for GAGB see gagb.co.uk . In general, the point of the suggestion was to enable reviewers to spot unwitting badness (such as the examples given) at the time of cache submission. Extra work for COs? Yes, a little ... so what. Extra work for reviewers? Only if they bother to look at the photos which, in GS's year of cache quality, I might've hoped they would.

I'd tell you what to bite if it wouldn't get me a forum vacation. You have a lousy sense of humor. <_<

March 15, 2011

I'd tell you what to bite if it wouldn't get me a forum vacation. You have a lousy sense of humor.

Trollllll !!!!!! Hahahaha :anitongue:

7k · March 15, 2011

Why do I get the feeling that the sole intention behind posting this thread was to troll the forums? :unsure:

6.7k · March 15, 2011

ouch. I'm wounded.

:omnomnom:

1.4k · March 15, 2011

Can you imagine what the reviewer for the ET Hwy series would have had to endure to weed through 3000+ pictures before approving them?

I'd drive down the highway with a video camera pointing out the passenger side window and submit that. :anibad:

March 15, 2011

I'd tell you what to bite if it wouldn't get me a forum vacation. You have a lousy sense of humor.

Trollllll !!!!!! Hahahaha

Please play nicer, both of you.

It's an interesting idea, to submit pictures of new caches. But it does seem like an unnecessary burden. We should be able to depend on cachers following guidelines. If not the person who placed the cache, then the people who find them should speak up.

2k · March 15, 2011

my post on the forum link thing..

I have wondered how reviewers know things, next thing we are going to get asked is how the puzzle the solved in advance, which I imagine this will be a precursor to.

I would be more interested to know if reviewers want this. Personally as a non-reviewer, I find it tedious. Besides, owners change the containers, slightly change the hides as time goes by. Would we need approval for every time we do this? I have changed containers but kept the same coordinates a few times. This would not solve that.

Without more information, am against this.

March 15, 2011

lamoracke - I don't propose to photo-record hide changes, cache displacement, etc. Just to add some burden at initial submission time on lazy good-for-nothing chucks-cache-in-a-bush COs, and on the loons that think it's clever to have a cache hanging off a bridge over a highway (say). Reviewers have presumably had the "quality" pep talk to GS HQ by now and are ready to burn the midnight oil in support of my suggestion. Obviously.

kpanko - I'll pay(*) you 10000 zorkmids if you start a thread offering points to cachers that dob-in bad COs! No, seriously, I'd love to have more faith in my fellow cacher raising NM/NA as appropriate, but it doesn't seem to happen enough. Cunning plans welcome.

(*) actually not

March 15, 2011

Can you imagine what the reviewer for the ET Hwy series would have had to endure to weed through 3000+ pictures before approving them?

I'd drive down the highway with a video camera pointing out the passenger side window and submit that.

*aaack* - foiled! You win.

18.9k · March 15, 2011

This thread has gotten a bit weird.......

Not sure where it is going......

:omnomnom:

5.2k · March 15, 2011

1.1k · March 15, 2011

unwitting badness

WOW, Awesome user name. Can I use it? So much cooler than Beans! :lol:

14k · March 15, 2011

Wouldn't passing a basic guidelines 'test' before placing caches work equally as well without further burdening the reviewers or hiders??

I proposed a simple one several years ago.....needs much more work.

http://wnag.net/checklist/Default.aspx

I remember seeing a feedback issue that suggested using a quiz to test if users had read the guidelines before they could have a cache published. Last I looked it had a status of "under consideration" but that was quite awhile ago.

March 16, 2011

Mmmm... Donuts

5k · March 16, 2011

Why do I get the feeling that the sole intention behind posting this thread was to troll the forums?

BINGO!

5k · March 16, 2011

lamoracke - I don't propose to photo-record hide changes, cache displacement, etc. Just to add some burden at initial submission time on lazy good-for-nothing chucks-cache-in-a-bush COs, and on the loons that think it's clever to have a cache hanging off a bridge over a highway (say). Reviewers have presumably had the "quality" pep talk to GS HQ by now and are ready to burn the midnight oil in support of my suggestion. Obviously.

kpanko - I'll pay(*) you 10000 zorkmids if you start a thread offering points to cachers that dob-in bad COs! No, seriously, I'd love to have more faith in my fellow cacher raising NM/NA as appropriate, but it doesn't seem to happen enough. Cunning plans welcome.

(*) actually not

Exactly what listing guideline is violated by putting a cache in a bush? You seem to want to make the reviewers responsible for the quality of caches. That is not their job. Their job is to check that the cache does not violate the listing guidelines. There is no guideline prohibiting lousy caches.

March 16, 2011

DonJ - my only claim re lousy caches is that the photo-evidence burden on COs is much more likely to deter those lazy/lousy COs than it is to deter COs that "take pride in their hide".

StarBrand - yep, that could work ... though I prefer the photo idea as that might force some people to confront the grim reality of their cruddy hides and have a rethink. Both ideas are good for guideline compliance.

March 16, 2011

It basically stops the people who don't read the guidelines,

It is not going to stop people who don't read the guidelines,

Nothing is going stop people who don't read the guidelines,

Reading and understanding the guidelines is too much work for some people.

Geocaching in a responsible manner is too much work for some people,(I cite the ET trail.)

I am tired of reading and understanding the guidelines, they are too restrictive, I am going to join the masses and do it my way.

exit now.

March 16, 2011

Im not really bothered by this idea & have actually done something similar on a few of the last hides i submitted (posted the photos to a sharing service & provided links to them in the notes). If the reviewer is curious or wanted to look (putting myself in a reviewer's shoes - i figured it would help them to see what they were reviewing vs interpreting my description), if they didnt care, they can ignore. My rationale is that I take pictures of my hides when i put them out anyway (so when i check them, i have a reference to see if there's been environmental impact and, more importantly, if it was a hide in a city park, i needed the pictures for the permission request letter anyway) - it only takes a minute to post & link to them.

19k · March 16, 2011

unwitting badness

WOW, Awesome user name. Can I use it? So much cooler than Beans!

Sounds too much like "unwilling baldness"

5k · March 16, 2011

DonJ - my only claim re lousy caches is that the photo-evidence burden on COs is much more likely to deter those lazy/lousy COs than it is to deter COs that "take pride in their hide".

If I hide a lousy cache, every cacher that finds it is going to know that it is a lousy cache. If that amount of peer pressure doesn't deter me from hiding lousy caches, why would a photo sent to the reviewer do so?

18.9k · March 16, 2011

DonJ - my only claim re lousy caches is that the photo-evidence burden on COs is much more likely to deter those lazy/lousy COs than it is to deter COs that "take pride in their hide".

StarBrand - yep, that could work ... though I prefer the photo idea as that might force some people to confront the grim reality of their cruddy hides and have a rethink. Both ideas are good for guideline compliance.

..the sad part is - who exactly gets to determine what is a 'lousy' cache. While a large percentage of cachers might agree - certainly not all will.

1.1k · March 16, 2011

unwitting badness

WOW, Awesome user name. Can I use it? So much cooler than Beans!

Sounds too much like "unwilling baldness"

Either would be appropriate in my case.

Photo evidence required in cache submissions

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment