Jump to content

Review vs Approve


GeoBain
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

For reference, from another currently running thread:

 

The Iowa geocache approver will not knowingly approve any cache made to look like electrical equipment. If it is already approved and brought to their attention, it is promptly archived.

 

For some reason, lamp post skirt caches seem to be exempt from this policy. Arrrg! :mad:

Link to comment
Should they be refusing to publish caches they do not approve of?

If the reason they don't approve of a cache is because they believe it is a guideline violation, then I agree with them not publishing it. For instance, I have found several caches over my career that simulated some piece of electrical equipment. Without exception, each was in a place, (business property), which I would interpret as needing explicit permission. Of the few cache owners I've spoken with regarding these hides, none had more then presumed permission.

 

If they are refusing to publish because they don't care for those hides, or they believe that they are dangerous, then I would say they've got some kind of twisted agenda in place and should probably not be a Reviewer.

Link to comment

Reviewers have some lassitude to stretch the guidelines a bit. On one side they can approve caches that would technically be against the guidelines to allow experiments. So they should have the same to deny caches that technically seem to adhere to the guidelines but should not be published anyway for some rational reason.

We already have enough rules for the game. We do not need them detailed for special cases. I prefer to put a little trust in the reviewer

Link to comment

For reference, from another currently running thread:

 

The Iowa geocache approver will not knowingly approve any cache made to look like electrical equipment. If it is already approved and brought to their attention, it is promptly archived.

 

For some reason, lamp post skirt caches seem to be exempt from this policy. Arrrg! :mad:

 

OK, now I see what you're talking about with the quote. No, they should not be rejecting caches they don't personally approve of. I'll be back after I find the quote where the Eastern New York Reviewer will not publish playground caches, which are not against the guidelines. :ph34r:

 

EDIT: By the way, I'm not really going to do that. However, I'm positive (pun intended, electricity and all) that the quote from Iowa Admin's blog has been discussed before.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

A cache that is reviewed but not published is denied. Therefore a cache that is reviewed and published is approved. I'm not sure why members like to berate people who use the term "approved". It is correct, even if Groundspeak has an official euphemism.

Your logic is flawed, since caches are not "denied." "Listings" can be "archived," however.

 

Guidelines-compliant caches are "reviewed" and then "published." I publish lots of caches that I don't personally approve of (as in, "all puzzle caches"). I have held up publication for many caches that I would love to see published so I could find them (as in, ammo box hidden 400 feet from a film canister in the park's parking lot). I try to suggest ways in which the non-publishable hide can be made guidelines-compliant (in my example, by moving the ammo box so it's at least 528 feet from the parking lot micro).

Link to comment

I publish lots of caches that I don't personally approve of (as in, "all puzzle caches").

 

Interesting. What is it about puzzle caches that you find undesirable?

 

Just a guess, but he spends a huge amount of time on his Reviewer duties, as well as attempting to herd the cats in the forums. Along with his other pursuits, I doubt he has an interest in spending his valuable free geo-time working on puzzles vs actually caching.

Edited by cheech gang
Link to comment

A cache that is reviewed but not published is denied. Therefore a cache that is reviewed and published is approved. I'm not sure why members like to berate people who use the term "approved". It is correct, even if Groundspeak has an official euphemism.

 

Actually, a cache that is reviewed but not published is disabled. In the case of publishing LPCs, many of us would consider the reviewers to be enablers. :P

Link to comment

I publish lots of caches that I don't personally approve of (as in, "all puzzle caches").

 

Interesting. What is it about puzzle caches that you find undesirable?

 

Just a guess, but he spends a huge amount of time on his Reviewer duties, as well as attempting to herd the cats in the forums. Along with his other pursuits, I doubt he has an interest in spending his valuable free geo-time working on puzzles vs actually caching.

 

Lack of interest or no desire to do something is different than not approving of something. You can still approve of puzzle caches even if you don't like spending your time figuring them out. Personal dissaproval of "all puzzle caches" indicates a belief that they should not be allowed. I'm curious as to why, that's all...

Link to comment

Should they be refusing to publish caches they do not approve of?

 

Your original question sounds like a logical fallacy to me. A little like asking, "when did you stop beating your wife".

 

I'm not sure about the logical fallacy.

 

Apparently there is a reviewer that refuses to publish any caches "made to look like electrical equipment". And if there are existing caches like this that are brought to his attention, then he archives them.

 

Now I'm thinking that what the person quoted meant to say was that the reviewer refuses to publish any caches on electrical equipment. The logical assumption would be this is based on a permission issue.

 

But if the quote is correct and the reviewer refuses to publish a cache that simply looks like electrical equipment, then that would seem like a misapplication of the guidelines.

 

Reviewers are supposed to just check that caches adhere to the guidelines, not inject their personal opinions of whether they approve of any particular cache container style.

Link to comment

If anybody wants to know more about IowaAdmin's side of this, here is an article on his blog about the subject:

 

http://iowaadmin.blogspot.com/search?q=electric

 

And this quote also came from his blog. You can see from this that he is simply requiring explicit permission. My local reviewers have that requirement for cemetery caches.

 

- Don't hide caches that are on or that simulate electrical equipment unless you can show express permission that you have permission from the owner of the electrical equipment. (I still think these are a bad idea, but they may be approved if the cache owner has permission.)
Link to comment

 

And this quote also came from his blog. You can see from this that he is simply requiring explicit permission. My local reviewers have that requirement for cemetery caches.

 

- Don't hide caches that are on or that simulate electrical equipment unless you can show express permission that you have permission from the owner of the electrical equipment. (I still think these are a bad idea, but they may be approved if the cache owner has permission.)

 

What gives him the right to do that?

He is using a personal bias to require express permission when that is not required under the listing guidelines.

So if I hang a bison tube in a tree that is fine with him without express permission, but if I hang an outlet box with a light switch in a tree I need express permission from the owner of the tree.

It is not his job to just make up rules like that.

If the cache meets all of the Groundspeak listing guidelines it should be published.

It should not matter if the reviewer thinks a specific container is a good idea.

Imagine the uproar if the reviewer required express permission for all ammo can hides but willingly publishes all nano containers with implied permission. Just because they don't like ammo cans.

Link to comment

And this quote also came from his blog. You can see from this that he is simply requiring explicit permission. My local reviewers have that requirement for cemetery caches.

 

- Don't hide caches that are on or that simulate electrical equipment unless you can show express permission that you have permission from the owner of the electrical equipment. (I still think these are a bad idea, but they may be approved if the cache owner has permission.)

 

What gives him the right to do that?

<snip>

I suspect Keystone or some other reviewer will be along sooner or later to answer your question, but I would guess that Groundspeak gives them the right to do that.

Link to comment
- Don't hide caches that are on or that simulate electrical equipment unless you can show express permission that you have permission from the owner of the electrical equipment.

Ya know, being a highly biased cacher myself, I think I kinda like this!

Imagine if Jeremy scoured his ranks, realizing that there were no old, fat, crippled, balding, highly biased reviewers in his pool, and felt the need to add one. I could start refusing to publish any film can that does not have explicit permission! :ph34r::P:lol:

Link to comment

I completely understand requiring explicit permission if a cache is attached to the power company's equipment. Experience probably says 99% of those don't have adequate permission.

 

But requiring explicit permission just because your cache looks like electrical equipment is exceeding his authority. And if it isn't, it should be.

 

Reviewers don't get to pick and choose what they like and don't like when it comes to publishing caches.

Link to comment

What gives him the right to do that?

A better question might be what's stopping him? There's no geocaching rule-making body or organizing authority, which means there aren't any geocaching rules.

 

This guideline trumps all:

 

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache.

While I'm sure Groundspeak strives for some consistency, it would be foolish of them to disallow the reviewers some personal discretion. The volunteer reviewers. And the first rule of working with volunteers is to never discourage or disrespect the volunteers.

 

Groundspeak provides an appeals process for anyone who thinks they have run afoul of an allegedly activist reviewer, so there is little reason to get very upset about this particular imperfection.

Link to comment

There's no geocaching rule-making body or organizing authority, which means there aren't any geocaching rules.

 

This guideline trumps all:

 

You do realize that you state there is no organizing authority and then follow it by quoting the guidelines from the organizing authority right?

 

Groundspeak is the organizing authority for listing caches on their site.

This topic is about a reviewer circumventing that authority and establishing their own 'rules' for what is required before a cache is listed.

 

If a reviewer can just make up their own guidelines then the guidelines listed on the site are worthless.

 

Having an appeal process is not a solution but a band-aid. A solution would be to prevent it from happening, not 'fixing' it each time after the fact.

 

If a reviewer refuses to follow the guidelines as set forth by Groundspeak then that reviewer should be either re-trained or replaced.

 

Reviewers have a difficult and often thankless job, but that does not put them beyond reproach.

And reviewers that start making up rules as they go along just makes the job that much more difficult for the reviewers that do their job properly.

Link to comment

There's no geocaching rule-making body or organizing authority, which means there aren't any geocaching rules.

 

This guideline trumps all:

 

You do realize that you state there is no organizing authority and then follow it by quoting the guidelines from the organizing authority right?

 

Groundspeak is the organizing authority for listing caches on their site.

This topic is about a reviewer circumventing that authority and establishing their own 'rules' for what is required before a cache is listed.

 

If a reviewer can just make up their own guidelines then the guidelines listed on the site are worthless.

 

Having an appeal process is not a solution but a band-aid. A solution would be to prevent it from happening, not 'fixing' it each time after the fact.

 

If a reviewer refuses to follow the guidelines as set forth by Groundspeak then that reviewer should be either re-trained or replaced.

 

Reviewers have a difficult and often thankless job, but that does not put them beyond reproach.

And reviewers that start making up rules as they go along just makes the job that much more difficult for the reviewers that do their job properly.

 

Groundspeak has every right to give some degree of local digression to their reviewers. One size doesn't necessarily fit all. I'm guessing that IowaAdmin has simply stated that, in his best judgement, he can't in good conscience approve a cache on electrical equipment. And that Groundspeak simply said, "OK", is is their right to do.

 

Did you know that you may be paying more or less for something at your local Walmart than I am paying at mine? Its true. They can do that.

Link to comment

Groundspeak has every right to give some degree of local digression to their reviewers. One size doesn't necessarily fit all. I'm guessing that IowaAdmin has simply stated that, in his best judgement, he can't in good conscience approve a cache on electrical equipment. And that Groundspeak simply said, "OK", is is their right to do.

 

I'd be fine with that.

 

This is the part that bothers me.

 

or that simulate electrical equipment

 

An on/off switch attached to a tree in the woods would be not different than an ammo can in the woods. But what I'm reading is that that ammo can will pass muster while the on/off switch would need explicit permission.

 

Since some are ok with reviewers picking and choosing what they like and don't like I have a question.

 

Which is worse?

 

Refusing to approve a geocache the you don't like but adheres to the guidelines or publishing caches you do approve of that do not adhere to the guidelines?

 

Either of these are possibilities when you start down the path of inconsistency.

Link to comment

You do realize that you state there is no organizing authority and then follow it by quoting the guidelines from the organizing authority right?

No, I do not. Groundspeak is a publisher, not an organizing authority. One could argue that it is a false distinction and Groundspeak is trying to have it both ways, but that is a topic for a different thread.

 

It seems pretty unrealistic to have a fixed set of one-size-fits-all guidelines, especially when dealing with local customs, laws, etc. A certain amount of flexibility seems prudent. Besides, guidelines are intended to set expectations, they are not rigid. If they were, these forums would lose most of their entertainment possibilities.

 

Link to comment

 

Groundspeak has every right to give some degree of local digression to their reviewers. One size doesn't necessarily fit all.

So then the guidelines are worthless to quote anywhere on this site since the local reviewer can have 'digressing' rules then.

 

The answer to all guideline questions should be ask your local reviewer since each locality may have a reviewer that has differing personal preferences.

 

And then I suppose if you are in an area where you might have one of three reviewers pluck your cache submission out of the queue your cache may or may not be published based on luck of the draw even though you are in compliance with the officially published listing guidelines.

 

Seems a bad way to go about it to me.

Link to comment

You do realize that you state there is no organizing authority and then follow it by quoting the guidelines from the organizing authority right?

No, I do not. Groundspeak is a publisher, not an organizing authority. One could argue that it is a false distinction and Groundspeak is trying to have it both ways, but that is a topic for a different thread.

 

It seems pretty unrealistic to have a fixed set of one-size-fits-all guidelines, especially when dealing with local customs, laws, etc. A certain amount of flexibility seems prudent. Besides, guidelines are intended to set expectations, they are not rigid. If they were, these forums would lose most of their entertainment possibilities.

 

They're not as flexible as you seem to think. Try getting a cache published 500' from another cache. There have been occasional exceptions made. But for the most part, the guidelines are more like rules.

 

Again, the permission issue makes sense for caches placed on electrical equipment. I'm actually glad the reviewer is proactive with that. But refusing to publish a cache just because it looks like electrical equipment just seems to go to far.

Link to comment

They're not as flexible as you seem to think. Try getting a cache published 500' from another cache.

Sure, but it has been done, has it not? As I said, I think GS does strive for some consistency, so saying there is some discretion is not the same thing as saying anything goes.

Link to comment

Groundspeak has every right to give some degree of local digression to their reviewers. One size doesn't necessarily fit all. I'm guessing that IowaAdmin has simply stated that, in his best judgement, he can't in good conscience approve a cache on electrical equipment. And that Groundspeak simply said, "OK", is is their right to do.

 

I'd be fine with that.

 

This is the part that bothers me.

 

or that simulate electrical equipment

 

An on/off switch attached to a tree in the woods would be not different than an ammo can in the woods. But what I'm reading is that that ammo can will pass muster while the on/off switch would need explicit permission.

 

Since some are ok with reviewers picking and choosing what they like and don't like I have a question.

 

Which is worse?

 

Refusing to approve a geocache the you don't like but adheres to the guidelines or publishing caches you do approve of that do not adhere to the guidelines?

 

Either of these are possibilities when you start down the path of inconsistency.

 

"- Don't hide caches that are on or that simulate electrical equipment unless you can show express permission that you have permission from the owner of the electrical equipment."

 

OK, let's slow down and re-examine that quote. It is, I admit, a little confusing, but if you have attached a circuit box to a tree in the woods: there is no owner of the "electrical equipment" to get permission from! I read the statement to only apply to situations where caches are applied to functioning electrical equipment or are in direct proximity to and appear to be actual functioning electrical equipment.

Link to comment

Groundspeak has every right to give some degree of local digression to their reviewers. One size doesn't necessarily fit all.

So then the guidelines are worthless to quote anywhere on this site since the local reviewer can have 'digressing' rules then.

Until ReviewerBot Version 1,0 is perfected, we will ALWAYS have discrepancies between reviewers. We forum users can't even agree on what a particular guideline means, oftentimes.

Link to comment

If anybody wants to know more about IowaAdmin's side of this, here is an article on his blog about the subject:

 

http://iowaadmin.blogspot.com/search?q=electric

 

And this quote also came from his blog. You can see from this that he is simply requiring explicit permission. My local reviewers have that requirement for cemetery caches.

 

- Don't hide caches that are on or that simulate electrical equipment unless you can show express permission that you have permission from the owner of the electrical equipment. (I still think these are a bad idea, but they may be approved if the cache owner has permission.)

I don't see this as such a big issue worth pinning on one reviewer. (I had no idea what the actual language was of the issue at hand until knowschad posted this)

 

It sounds like reviewers, such as IowaAdmin, are simply asking for permission to place electrical equipment hides (simulated, or not) on or near existing electrical equipment. I doubt a simulated electrical box placed in the middle of nowhere would be denied...so long as you have permission to hide it wherever you chose to hide it. To me, this sounds like sound reviewing policy. You do, in fact, need permission to hide in many places.

Link to comment

For reference, from another currently running thread:

 

The Iowa geocache approver will not knowingly approve any cache made to look like electrical equipment. If it is already approved and brought to their attention, it is promptly archived.

 

For some reason, lamp post skirt caches seem to be exempt from this policy. Arrrg! :mad:

OK, as the poster of the message quoted, I just wanted to clarify that every experience I have had with the IowaAdmin has been very professional and well handled. In general, I'm on board with this "Iowa" policy concerning caches and electrical equipment, but I can imagine situations where I'd suspect that the IowaAdmin would make exceptions.

 

I'm sure if you attached a light switch in a very unexpected place, for example, in an existing hole in a tree in a public area, you could probably get approval after explaining the unique situation. I think the type of situation he is primarily referring to in his blog is those situations where there would be some question between if it is real equipment or not, for example, if someone puts a cache on an electrical box mounted tight against a building with conduit pushed into the ground. Such a container could just as easily be a real electrical box containing live power.

 

I think it really boils down to a question of safety. We have lots of laws today that are in place to protect individuals which we are expected to follow regardless of if we agree with them or not, for example, seatbelt/helmet laws, smoke detector laws, etc.

 

And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, geocaching has guidelines, not rules or laws, which leaves a lot of gray areas to the disgression of the reviewers. Like it or not, this is the way it is handled by geocaching. It is not a democracy so they can handle things as they like. If you don't like, you can choose to not participate.

Edited by medoug
Link to comment

A cache that is reviewed but not published is denied. Therefore a cache that is reviewed and published is approved. I'm not sure why members like to berate people who use the term "approved". It is correct, even if Groundspeak has an official euphemism.

Your logic is flawed, since caches are not "denied." "Listings" can be "archived," however.

 

Guidelines-compliant caches are "reviewed" and then "published."

I see it like this: all caches are "reviewed". After it's reviewed, it can be assigned a YES status where it's made available for public viewing, or a NO status where it is kept hidden. The YES and NO statuses can be given different names, but approved and not approved respectively are two of them.

Link to comment

 

And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, geocaching has guidelines, not rules or laws, which leaves a lot of gray areas to the disgression of the reviewers. Like it or not, this is the way it is handled by geocaching. It is not a democracy so they can handle things as they like. If you don't like, you can choose to not participate.

 

No, actually if you don't like, you send an email to appeals@geocaching.com and try to prove the reviewer wrong. :lol:

 

See how I cut the tension with the small paragraph, and laughing smiley icon? Because believe me, I very strongly disagree with this post. Really? If someone who happens to live in the "wrong area" doesn't like one of the inherent and often glaring inconsistencies of the volunteer reviewer system, they can just not Geocache?

 

I wasn't kidding in Post #6 when I said the Eastern NY reviewer rejects caches they deem too close to playgrounds. Caches that would most likely be published without a second thought in 49 1/2 other States. And although I think they are lame, and would NEVER place one myself, someone can slap a magnetic keyholder on a transformer in 49 States whose name is not Iowa? Why is this? Because in both cases there is nothing in the guidelines prohibiting such caches.

 

And if you live in these 1 1/2 States, just deal with it? Wrong answer in my opinion. Take it to appeals. Which not enough people even know about. They should.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

 

They're not as flexible as you seem to think. Try getting a cache published 500' from another cache.

 

But, if a mistake is made and a cache IS published 300' from your cache, and you notice sometime later...the response is 'It hasn't caused any problems, so I'm letting it stay'. :mad:

 

Distance might make a difference there. In earlier years, the CO did not have to give the coords for the final of a unknown or multi cache. I've seen two instances where the newer cacher hid a cache 2' (in one case), and 70' (in the other) from the older cache. Both of those newer caches were retracted.

Link to comment

 

They're not as flexible as you seem to think. Try getting a cache published 500' from another cache.

 

But, if a mistake is made and a cache IS published 300' from your cache, and you notice sometime later...the response is 'It hasn't caused any problems, so I'm letting it stay'. :mad:

 

Distance might make a difference there. In earlier years, the CO did not have to give the coords for the final of a unknown or multi cache. I've seen two instances where the newer cacher hid a cache 2' (in one case), and 70' (in the other) from the older cache. Both of those newer caches were retracted.

 

I found a 2009 or so placed cache, oh up near Toronto some where (that should narrow it down :lol: ) That was about 100 feet from the final of a 2003 or so placed multi. I didn't say anything, and I just looked, and no one else has either. Of course so many people are scared of multi-caches, that the Traditional gets hit way more often.

 

Oh, and Dolphin, I found two 2002 or so placed caches in the Watchung reservation that were about 25 feet apart in a ravine. They're both archived now though.

Link to comment

Certain areas may have had requests by the electric company to disallow caches hidden on their equipment. Law enforcement may have made similar requests about playground hides in other areas. Assumptions based on incomplete information is abound.

 

Also, if the reviewers are doing that in their areas, they may be the only ones who are performing their job correctly. "Adequate permission" means that the general public is welcome to search those areas. There is a difference between being legally allowed on the property, and searching for objects left by someone else - which may not be welcome.

 

Victoria Horne is hidden among live wires inside of a rusty lampost on private property. I dont see any "adequate permission" which allows the general public to root around in there. Just because they may be allowed in the parking lot, does not make it okay for them to perform activities in which the property owner would disapprove of. An area of "public accomadation" is limited to certain activities.

 

The cache owner is also a minor, which is a violation of the TOU.

 

Just because there are many reviewers not doing their job, it does not mean that the other ones are at fault.

Link to comment
The cache owner is also a minor, which is a violation of the TOU.

That is not a violation of the TOU.

 

As long as he is under the supervision of his/her parent or legal guardian, then as a minor he/she is not violating the TOU (as it pertains to minors using the site).

Edited by Encino
Link to comment
The cache owner is also a minor, which is a violation of the TOU.

That is not a violation of the TOU.

 

As long as he is under the supervision of his/her parent or legal guardian, then as a minor he/she is not violating the TOU (as it pertains to minors using the site).

 

I've seen many a horrific "middle school kid" hide over the years. Believe me, you can tell in about 2 seconds whether they were supervised or not. In the case of the cache 4Wheelin_fool apparently doesn't like very much :lol: it's quite obvious there was no supervision. Just like the 13 yr. old kid in my area who tossed a film canister into Quizno's landscaping, where seekers were in full view of the patrons and staff, tromping around in the bushes. And the idea that the kid had permission is totally preposterous. Actually, that was like 6 years ago, the kid's probably in college now. :P

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

A cache that is reviewed but not published is denied. Therefore a cache that is reviewed and published is approved. I'm not sure why members like to berate people who use the term "approved". It is correct, even if Groundspeak has an official euphemism.

Your logic is flawed, since caches are not "denied." "Listings" can be "archived," however.

 

Guidelines-compliant caches are "reviewed" and then "published."

I see it like this: all caches are "reviewed". After it's reviewed, it can be assigned a YES status where it's made available for public viewing, or a NO status where it is kept hidden. The YES and NO statuses can be given different names, but approved and not approved respectively are two of them.

 

It's a very fine distinction, and mostly semantic.

In a legal situation the difference between 'Approved' and 'Published' may be 'Lawsuit'.

 

'Approved' implies that Groundspeak agrees with every aspect of the cache, and has completely inspected the site, the container and it's contents, discussed the hide with the property owner, etc.

 

'Published' implies that Groundspeak is just a listing service, and (mostly) takes the cache owner at his word when 'Publishing' a cache listing on their site. If the cache owner lied about the details, Groundspeak would have no way of knowing. Anyone with legal issues about a particular cache should speak to the cache owner.

Link to comment

A cache that is reviewed but not published is denied. Therefore a cache that is reviewed and published is approved. I'm not sure why members like to berate people who use the term "approved". It is correct, even if Groundspeak has an official euphemism.

Your logic is flawed, since caches are not "denied." "Listings" can be "archived," however.

 

Guidelines-compliant caches are "reviewed" and then "published."

I see it like this: all caches are "reviewed". After it's reviewed, it can be assigned a YES status where it's made available for public viewing, or a NO status where it is kept hidden. The YES and NO statuses can be given different names, but approved and not approved respectively are two of them.

 

It's a very fine distinction, and mostly semantic.

In a legal situation the difference between 'Approved' and 'Published' may be 'Lawsuit'.

 

'Approved' implies that Groundspeak agrees with every aspect of the cache, and has completely inspected the site, the container and it's contents, discussed the hide with the property owner, etc.

 

'Published' implies that Groundspeak is just a listing service, and (mostly) takes the cache owner at his word when 'Publishing' a cache listing on their site. If the cache owner lied about the details, Groundspeak would have no way of knowing. Anyone with legal issues about a particular cache should speak to the cache owner.

 

Ding Ding Ding! A winning description! Groundspeak started as, has been, and will continue to be a listing service for geocaches. That way, they aren't responsible for placement issues--the owner of the container is.

 

If Groundspeak "approves" my cache, and someone gets hurt, trespasses, or makes something that looks like a bomb...they could be held liable because they "approved" of the cache and placement. Groundspeak publishes a listing as a service to us. We can take our geocache listings elsewhere if we wanted to, and we would still be the liable party for a cache we place. It's that simple.

 

So, Reviewers review a cache to see that it meets the basic guidelines of Groundspeak (to cover their rear end) and the possible placement rules, laws or guidelines of the area the Reviewer is responsible for. If it meets placement guidelines for the area and Groundspeak, then it is published...not "approved"...in a legal sense.

This is an important subtlety of the word; English is a crazy language.

Link to comment

OK Let's look at this from a different rule.

 

I tried to start a group of caches that would take cachers around our county to the different Veteran Organizations and Monuments/Markers.

 

I was told this by NCReviewer: Any mention to ANY group is not allowed. Just imagine taking the word out and replacing it with KKK. Would it still be cool. (If you want the actual e-mail text I will have to look)

 

Basically, since I said something to the effect of Stop by and take a minute to remember our veterans, he/she would not approve it.

 

Even when I sent him lots of evidence of others just like it

 

http://coord.info/GC2Y6WK "ArkGeo" Honoring Veterans

 

http://coord.info/GCTK02 "In Memory of the Rusk County Veterans"

 

http://coord.info/GC2EQHG “911” & VETERANS MEMORIAL

 

http://coord.info/GC37EZ5 11-11-11 Honoring Veterans

 

According to NCReviewers standards none of these should get approved because if you replace Veteran(s) with KKK then it would be appropriate.

 

He/She did not approve the cache until I completely changes the name and wording in the description.

 

Tell me how that is not interjecting your own thoughts into your thoughts and beliefs into your review process.

Link to comment

Tell me how that is not interjecting your own thoughts into your thoughts and beliefs into your review process.

 

Simple.

 

While he probably does approve of memorial caches for veterans, he must review the cache against the guidelines.

 

If the cache adheres to the guidelines, it gets published even if his does not approve of it.

 

If the cache does not adhere to the guidelines, it does not get published even if the reviewer may personally approve of that cache.

Link to comment

 

Tell me how that is not interjecting your own thoughts into your thoughts and beliefs into your review process.

 

Not sure on this, here in Indiana there was a very large series of cemetery caches put out by a group of several people. One of the items on the listings was a yellow ribbon with 'I support our troops'. There was also wording at the end of some of the listings

If you find a fallen US flag, please stick it back in the ground. As always, please be respectful of our pioneer dead and our beloved Veterans, and cache in, trash out. Say a prayer for our brave troops, fighting for Freedom overseas. God Bless America!

They had to either remove the ribbon and wording or the cache was archived. These caches had been out for four or five years too.

The reviewers get some very strict agenda policies from Groundspeak. Their personal opinion may have little to do with it.

Link to comment

Even when I sent him lots of evidence of others just like it...

 

I'm afraid that this is considered a common logical fallacy referred to as, "Inappropriate Appeal to Authority", which is most commonly refuted with the following portion of the Guidelines:

 

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches.

 

According to NCReviewers standards none of these should get approved...

 

I can't argue with you there :)

 

Tell me how that is not interjecting your own thoughts into your thoughts and beliefs into your review process.

 

That's easy! It's written in the Guidelines:

 

Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose. Geocaches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be a light and enjoyable family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda.

Link to comment

I would add too that based on the directives we've been privy to, the NCReviewer is apparently reviewing caches strictly by the guidelines. You have provided 4 examples of caches not reviewed by NCReviewer that appear to not adhere to the guidelines as we have been led to believe they should be interpreted.

 

Providing examples of 4 caches not adhering to the guidelines will not help to get your cache approved. It could perhaps lead to those caches being required to adhere to the guidelines or even possibly archived. :unsure:

Link to comment

If the cache does not adhere to the guidelines, it does not get published even if the reviewer may personally approve of that cache.

Word.

 

My favorites are the religious agenda caches that I can't publish. Sometimes the owner writes back a nasty, not-very-Christian note accusing me of being a godless atheist. I have a form letter that apologizes for my delay in responding due to preparing for the weekly Bible study class I teach through my church.

 

Another time I was told I was not worthy of being an American after leaving a similar note on a "support our troops" cache. Makes me wish I was a veteran like some of the other reviewers are. It would make for another fun form letter.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...