Reviewers asking for too much info?

[+RIclimber]

I've been hiding caches for 10 years, have placed 200+ with only 1 ever turned down. When I went to place a cache "Deep" in a state forest with 30+ caches already in it, it was disabled and I was told to fill out a questionnaire. I had already posted a reviewer note that it was within the park and that the last time I had talked to them (a few months ago) caches were fine.

 

Hi!

 

Thanks for placing a cache for others to find! ...[snip]... Please post your response in a reviewer note and then enable the cache page.

 

1) Please explain the property your cache is placed on. If you have gotten permission, please include contact information in your reviewer note. Any cache that is at a business (private property) should have permission from the business owner/manager/security personnel. Cemetery hides should have permission from the caretaker of the property (town or church, usually).

 

2) Please explain what type of container your cache is. Please note that ammo boxes should have military markings removed or covered up, and that a well-labeled container can help your cache from being mistaken as something dangerous!

 

3) Please explain how your cache is hidden. Caches should NEVER be buried. Holes should NEVER be drilled into trees, and zipties don't do damage to trees like nails and screws can.

 

Does anyone else think it's too much? This might be needed for urban caches, but this was off the woods. I had already checked "I've read the guidelines" AND had posted permission was OK, last I knew.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Downy288

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Is this something new all reviewers are asking of hiders? I just placed a cache in August...has something changed since then?

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Newbie reviewer?

[+RIclimber]

Newbie reviewer?

Been our reviewer for 5+ years. And at one point owned the most urban micros in the area. She was the person who introduced the idea of micros on every corner in this part of the country.

[+NeverSummer]

Newbie reviewer?

Been our reviewer for 5+ years. And at one point owned the most urban micros in the area. She was the person who introduced the idea of micros on every corner in this part of the country.

Is there possibly a new regulation in place for the forest? Are folks kept privy to the changes in policies for geocaching in your area by some means?

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Problems with violations like were mentioned in the area lately?

 

Sure hope it isn't a new standard site-wide.

[+RIclimber]

I had talked to the rangers a few months ago when I first planned the cache. I had already answered a few of the questions in my first note. It's a 3-4 mile hike around a pond. This was a copy-paste log that she is placing on EVERY cache before she reviews it. Why should I tell them how it's hidden, or what the cache is? Are they going to say NO because it's a gladware container and it leaks?

 

What's next? Caches put on hold until she can FTF, I mean check, each one personally?

 

Sorry to all the TB's I started the cache with, They'll be siting there for awhile. Maybe forever.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Downy288

[+The_Incredibles_]

To me, these are only 3 perfectly reasonable questions. I don't see a problem with it. In fact, I see it as a good thing that this reviwer is reminding people not to damage trees, to ask permission etc, to label things properly. I see this as the reviewer doing a good job. I had to answer some questions recently about one of my hides. It only took a few minutes. Another one, I was asked to read over a set of guidelines for that area and confim that my cache complied. Again, only a few minutes of my time.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

To me, these are only 3 perfectly reasonable questions. I don't see a problem with it. In fact, I see it as a good thing that this reviwer is reminding people not to damage trees, to ask permission etc, to label things properly. I see this as the reviewer doing a good job. I had to answer some questions recently about one of my hides. It only took a few minutes. Another one, I was asked to read over a set of guidelines for that area and confim that my cache complied. Again, only a few minutes of my time.

 

But until it becomes a site-wide requirement, one reviewer should be asking for things above and beyond.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

I have been hiding caches for a long time. I contact my reviewer if something might possibly need explaining. I add reviewer notes for pertinent information. Never a problem guideline-wise. Now my reviewer (not mine specifically, just general) give me a boilerplate questionnaire?

 

I'd wonder, too.

[Mr.Yuck]

Newbie reviewer?

Been our reviewer for 5+ years. And at one point owned the most urban micros in the area. She was the person who introduced the idea of micros on every corner in this part of the country.

 

Why, when people quote Jumpin' Jack Cache, does it only say "Jumpin'"? I have noticed this.

 

I will have no further comment on the inherent inconsistencies of the volunteer reviewer system, or reviewers under their player accounts introducing micros on every corner into New England States.

 

However, after reading your quoted reviewer note, that certainly sounds like something specific that has recently come up for that specific area. I can see where you would consider it an "insult", but the reviewers have to do what they have to do, in specific cases.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[Keystone]

What's next? Caches put on hold until she can FTF, I mean check, each one personally?

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Newbie reviewer?

Been our reviewer for 5+ years. And at one point owned the most urban micros in the area. She was the person who introduced the idea of micros on every corner in this part of the country.

 

Why, when people quote Jumpin' Jack Cache, does it only say "Jumpin'"? I have noticed this.

 

I will have no further comment on the inherent inconsistencies of the volunteer reviewer system, or reviewers under their player accounts introducing micros on every corner into New England States.

It's the '. Somebody in OT figured it out. Came with the forum update.

 

Check it out ^

[+Mudfrog]

I just hid a cache the other day and had more questions asked than i have in the 10 years that i've been hiding. I too was asked about the area, the container, and how it was hidden. Didn't mind answering but it did seem strange...

[jholly]

I've been hiding caches for 10 years, have placed 200+ with only 1 ever turned down. When I went to place a cache "Deep" in a state forest with 30+ caches already in it, it was disabled and I was told to fill out a questionnaire. I had already posted a reviewer note that it was within the park and that the last time I had talked to them (a few months ago) caches were fine.

 

Hi!

 

Thanks for placing a cache for others to find! ...[snip]... Please post your response in a reviewer note and then enable the cache page.

 

1) Please explain the property your cache is placed on. If you have gotten permission, please include contact information in your reviewer note. Any cache that is at a business (private property) should have permission from the business owner/manager/security personnel. Cemetery hides should have permission from the caretaker of the property (town or church, usually).

 

2) Please explain what type of container your cache is. Please note that ammo boxes should have military markings removed or covered up, and that a well-labeled container can help your cache from being mistaken as something dangerous!

 

3) Please explain how your cache is hidden. Caches should NEVER be buried. Holes should NEVER be drilled into trees, and zipties don't do damage to trees like nails and screws can.

 

Does anyone else think it's too much? This might be needed for urban caches, but this was off the woods. I had already checked "I've read the guidelines" AND had posted permission was OK, last I knew.

 

Well, at least the reviewer did not ask for your replies be notarized.

 

I do take exception to zipties not damaging trees. As the tree grows it will be choked off by the ziptie, the nail will not bother it. But that is another thread.

[+GeoBain]

What's next? Caches put on hold until she can FTF, I mean check, each one personally?

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

The issue raised seems pretty darned credible coming from someone who has been a member since 2002 and has over 200 hides regardless of any other suggested ethical violations he may have raised.

 

I realize you feel the need to defend fellow reviewers, but perhaps you could confirm whether or not the OP actually addressed several of those questions in his reviewer note as he stated. Because if he did cover the permission issue ahead of time, I am curious why a boiler plate note was left.

 

We have discussed the use of boiler plates before. And had the OP not said anything, then maybe it was warranted. But if the OP has a proven track record over the course of 200+ hides, then maybe the use of a boiler plate note was not warranted.

[Pup Patrol]

Sorry to all the TB's I started the cache with, They'll be siting there for awhile. Maybe forever.

 

I can understand your frustration with the reviewer, but why would you punish fellow cachers by leaving their tb's unaccounted for?

 

 

B.

[+RIclimber]

Sorry to all the TB's I started the cache with, They'll be siting there for awhile. Maybe forever.

 

I can understand your frustration with the reviewer, but why would you punish fellow cachers by leaving their tb's unaccounted for?

 

 

B.

 

I didn't think it would be so hard to get a cache approved. I wasn't planning on hiking the 3+ miles to the final again the next day. Going out there for cache maintenance is once thing, and not expected for a few months at least, but I'm not going to hurry out there just so some silly tag can keep moving.

 

I find the whole thing a bit offensive. I clicked that I had read the guidelines and adhered to them. I've "Proven" myself 200 times, I answered the normal questions before they were asked. Yet I still get treated as if I can't read and have no idea what I'm doing.

 

I agree this list of questions would be helpful for a first time cache owner, or if the cache looks to be in a very urban area.

 

I'm against anything that is a brainless "must do this, just because" and "zero tolerance"

[Mr.Yuck]

What's next? Caches put on hold until she can FTF, I mean check, each one personally?

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

The issue raised seems pretty darned credible coming from someone who has been a member since 2002 and has over 200 hides regardless of any other suggested ethical violations he may have raised.

 

I realize you feel the need to defend fellow reviewers, but perhaps you could confirm whether or not the OP actually addressed several of those questions in his reviewer note as he stated. Because if he did cover the permission issue ahead of time, I am curious why a boiler plate note was left.

 

We have discussed the use of boiler plates before. And had the OP not said anything, then maybe it was warranted. But if the OP has a proven track record over the course of 200+ hides, then maybe the use of a boiler plate note was not warranted.

 

I am in agreement with a reviewer not dropping a boilerplate note on a 200+ cache hider who joined in 2002. I think I'd be insulted myself. I'd vote for something a little more personal. Especially considering in this case they know who each other are and stuff. It's not like Joe Blow with 10 finds who joined last month is submitting his first hide or anything.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+SwineFlew]

What's next? Caches put on hold until she can FTF, I mean check, each one personally?

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

The issue raised seems pretty darned credible coming from someone who has been a member since 2002 and has over 200 hides regardless of any other suggested ethical violations he may have raised.

 

I realize you feel the need to defend fellow reviewers, but perhaps you could confirm whether or not the OP actually addressed several of those questions in his reviewer note as he stated. Because if he did cover the permission issue ahead of time, I am curious why a boiler plate note was left.

 

We have discussed the use of boiler plates before. And had the OP not said anything, then maybe it was warranted. But if the OP has a proven track record over the course of 200+ hides, then maybe the use of a boiler plate note was not warranted.

 

I am in agreement with a reviewer not dropping a boilerplate note on a 200+ cache hider who joined in 2002. I think I'd be insulted myself. I'd vote for something a little more personal. Especially considering in this case they know who each other are and stuff. It's not like Joe Blow with 10 finds who joined last month is submitting his first hide or anything.

 

I have to agree about the boilerplate note. It does feel like everything is thrown in one lump.

[+hukilaulau]

Sorry to all the TB's I started the cache with, They'll be siting there for awhile. Maybe forever.

 

I can understand your frustration with the reviewer, but why would you punish fellow cachers by leaving their tb's unaccounted for?

 

 

B.

 

I'm not going to hurry out there just so some silly tag can keep moving.

 

It has been proven time and again on these forums that there is always "more to the story" than the original whinepost presents, but with this disdainful attitude towards a part of the game some people put a lot of effort and money into, I don't even care what the rest of the story is. You've lost any credibility you might have started with.

[+Team OPJim]

I am also curious about this: is this a new trend amongst reviewers?

[+Don_J]

I am also curious about this: is this a new trend amongst reviewers?

 

Well, if it is, I'll have to figure out what to do with all of these containers I have laying around the house. I certainly won't be hiding them as Geocaches.

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

I find the whole thing a bit offensive. I clicked that I had read the guidelines and adhered to them. I've "Proven" myself 200 times, I answered the normal questions before they were asked. Yet I still get treated as if I can't read and have no idea what I'm doing.

 

I agree this list of questions would be helpful for a first time cache owner, or if the cache looks to be in a very urban area.

 

I'm against anything that is a brainless "must do this, just because" and "zero tolerance"

 

First of all, just because you've hidden 200 caches, doesn't mean you're labeling them clearly or not nailing things into trees.

 

See now what would happen if the reviewer only asked these questions of certain people, then those people would be on here complaining about being singled out.

 

Besides that, reviewers are volunteers and do have lives outside of geocaching. Should they really have to spend the extra time with each submitted listing checking to see whether the cache owner may/may not be offended by extra questions? What's wrong with them treating everyone the same? I personally wouldn't be offended.

 

My personal opinion-hiding geocaches is a privelege, not a right. We should trust the reviewers judgement and understand they have reasons for the things they do.

 

If they are taking the time to remind people to label their containers and be respectful of property, this is of benefit to everybody, especially in the long-term for the sport.

 

If they starting asking a series of 100 questions each time I submitted a cache, I'd probably be complaining with you. However, we're talking about 3 simple questions.

 

I still don't get why you can't just answer the questions and move on.

Edited September 16, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[+redsox_mark]

I can see why it would seem odd or even insulting to get such a boilerplate request.

 

Though it seems like a good idea to me. We all know that in spite of checking the box saying that the guidelines have been conformed to, that caches do get hidden which violate them. This note seems to be asking for specific information about key aspects of the guidelines.

 

Having said that, I can also understand the questions - why just this reviewer? Or is this part of new guidelines for reviewers?

 

What I would do is answer the questions, and I would send a polite note to the reviewer, asking if these additional questions are now a standard part of the process, or if there was some specific reason related to this submission for asking them.

 

It is the reviewers job to review caches against the guidelines. If a reviewer decides that they feel a good way to improve the percentages of caches in their area which conform is to ask such questions on all submissions, I would think they are entitled to. I assume the reviewers also talk and share "best practices"; and if other reviewers think the same, this could become more common, or even become recommended practice.

[4wheelin_fool]

It really doesn't matter how many hides, or how long they have been caching. Many guideline violation caches have already been listed by cachers who have many years and many hides behind them. Traditionally the "Don't ask, don't tell" meme would be applied. Then a new cacher comes along and finds one of these caches with a nail in a tree. They ask "how did this get published?" They either think that it's okay, or they learn not to give out too much info. Then they go out and bore a 2" hole into a 300 year old tree to hide a leaky film can.

 

If there are changes appearing, it only indicates that they are adapting to various issues that have appeared.

Edited September 16, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+briansnat]

What's next? Caches put on hold until she can FTF, I mean check, each one personally?

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

The issue raised seems pretty darned credible coming from someone who has been a member since 2002 and has over 200 hides regardless of any other suggested ethical violations he may have raised.

 

I realize you feel the need to defend fellow reviewers, but perhaps you could confirm whether or not the OP actually addressed several of those questions in his reviewer note as he stated. Because if he did cover the permission issue ahead of time, I am curious why a boiler plate note was left.

 

We have discussed the use of boiler plates before. And had the OP not said anything, then maybe it was warranted. But if the OP has a proven track record over the course of 200+ hides, then maybe the use of a boiler plate note was not warranted.

 

I am in agreement with a reviewer not dropping a boilerplate note on a 200+ cache hider who joined in 2002. I think I'd be insulted myself. I'd vote for something a little more personal. Especially considering in this case they know who each other are and stuff. It's not like Joe Blow with 10 finds who joined last month is submitting his first hide or anything.

 

I can assure you that the number of someone's hides often has little to do with his knowledge of, or adherence to the guidelines.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I am also curious about this: is this a new trend amongst reviewers?

 

Well, if it is, I'll have to figure out what to do with all of these containers I have laying around the house. I certainly won't be hiding them as Geocaches.

 

You got that right.....I think I have more ready to go than I have in the field......picked up a few match holders from Wallmart yesterday and Ace Hardware had fake rocks for less than $2 so I grabbed a couple.

[Clan Riffster]

If there are changes appearing, it only indicates that they are adapting to various issues that have appeared.

That's been my experience. While I've only been around since 2005, (a rookie to some), it seems that just about every guideline change I've witnessed has been in response to some cacher pushing the envelope farther than it should be pushed. I'm not really sure how many caches I've hidden. My profile says 82, (after the events are deducted), but that doesn't account for the ones I've adopted out. Had I received such a note I would have simply shrugged, answered as best I could, and moved forward.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

What's next? Caches put on hold until she can FTF, I mean check, each one personally?

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

The issue raised seems pretty darned credible coming from someone who has been a member since 2002 and has over 200 hides regardless of any other suggested ethical violations he may have raised.

 

I realize you feel the need to defend fellow reviewers, but perhaps you could confirm whether or not the OP actually addressed several of those questions in his reviewer note as he stated. Because if he did cover the permission issue ahead of time, I am curious why a boiler plate note was left.

 

We have discussed the use of boiler plates before. And had the OP not said anything, then maybe it was warranted. But if the OP has a proven track record over the course of 200+ hides, then maybe the use of a boiler plate note was not warranted.

 

I am in agreement with a reviewer not dropping a boilerplate note on a 200+ cache hider who joined in 2002. I think I'd be insulted myself. I'd vote for something a little more personal. Especially considering in this case they know who each other are and stuff. It's not like Joe Blow with 10 finds who joined last month is submitting his first hide or anything.

 

I can assure you that the number of someone's hides often has little to do with his knowledge of, or adherence to the guidelines.

 

So a doctor who has delivered hundreds of babies knows nothing about baby delivery ???????

Sorry, but an active cacher who has hid hundreds of caches over 10 years knows what he's doing. Will the cacher ( or doctor) ever be perfect...no, but the boiler plate won't make it perfect either.

[+UMainah]

Sorry to all the TB's I started the cache with, They'll be siting there for awhile. Maybe forever.

I can understand your frustration with the reviewer, but why would you punish fellow cachers by leaving their tb's unaccounted for?

B.

I didn't think it would be so hard to get a cache approved. I wasn't planning on hiking the 3+ miles to the final again the next day. Going out there for cache maintenance is once thing, and not expected for a few months at least, but I'm not going to hurry out there just so some silly tag can keep moving.

 

I find the whole thing a bit offensive. I clicked that I had read the guidelines and adhered to them. I've "Proven" myself 200 times, I answered the normal questions before they were asked. Yet I still get treated as if I can't read and have no idea what I'm doing.

 

I agree this list of questions would be helpful for a first time cache owner, or if the cache looks to be in a very urban area.

 

I'm against anything that is a brainless "must do this, just because" and "zero tolerance"

 

Why do these three questions require you to hike back out to the cache?

[+Manville Possum]

Newbie reviewer?

Been our reviewer for 5+ years. And at one point owned the most urban micros in the area. She was the person who introduced the idea of micros on every corner in this part of the country.

Is there possibly a new regulation in place for the forest? Are folks kept privy to the changes in policies for geocaching in your area by some means?

I have had to provide proof that my cache was not on NFS property because geocaches now require a $59 per year permit where they are allowed. Who knows what is going to happen to those caches that were published after NFS changed a policy and it took a few years before it was noted here.

[+eusty]

I'm confused by everyone complaining about a boilerplate reply from the reviewer? I don't expect a personal reply if they refuse a cache, they are busy people so writing an in-depth personal reply to everyone would takes ages...I guess they must have to send many similar responses.

 

He asked 3 questions, so:-

 

a) Answer them and move on.

 

Don't place the cache.

 

It's not rocket science......

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

1) No cacher should be offended when a Reviewer uses boilerplate text. I have seen it stated before in these forums that Reviewers try to use boilerplate text as often as possible for the sake of consistency, saving time, and being impartial.

 

2) I am curious to know if this is a new policy. If so, then the Cache Submission Form should be changed to have fields asking those 3 questions.

 

3) I, for one, don't see any problem with these questions. And while I've been caching for less than 3 years, it has seemed pretty clear to me that the growth of the hobby is going to need (and probably be better off) with closer regulating.

[Mr.Yuck]

What's next? Caches put on hold until she can FTF, I mean check, each one personally?

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

The issue raised seems pretty darned credible coming from someone who has been a member since 2002 and has over 200 hides regardless of any other suggested ethical violations he may have raised.

 

I realize you feel the need to defend fellow reviewers, but perhaps you could confirm whether or not the OP actually addressed several of those questions in his reviewer note as he stated. Because if he did cover the permission issue ahead of time, I am curious why a boiler plate note was left.

 

We have discussed the use of boiler plates before. And had the OP not said anything, then maybe it was warranted. But if the OP has a proven track record over the course of 200+ hides, then maybe the use of a boiler plate note was not warranted.

 

I am in agreement with a reviewer not dropping a boilerplate note on a 200+ cache hider who joined in 2002. I think I'd be insulted myself. I'd vote for something a little more personal. Especially considering in this case they know who each other are and stuff. It's not like Joe Blow with 10 finds who joined last month is submitting his first hide or anything.

 

I can assure you that the number of someone's hides often has little to do with his knowledge of, or adherence to the guidelines.

 

Well yes, very true. But in this case, Downy knows who the reviewer is, and I'm sure she's quite familiar with him. Heck, even I know who he is, and found one or two of his caches, and I live 500 miles away.

[+JJnTJ]

I can kind of understand why it would be offensive to get a boilerplate question from a reviewer after you've hidden so many caches.

 

I don't understand why you're taking it so personally, why you can't just let it go (and answer the questions), or why you're threatening to geocide and/or lose some people's trackables over this. :blink:

 

It's easy to imagine that reviewers get dozens or hundreds of pieces of correspondence each day. Since they have lives outside of geocaching, expecting them to "know you" is arrogant. Reading between the lines of the posts you have here, you seem to have some sort of beef with this reviewer, and attempting to vilify them here in the forums is bad form.

Edited September 16, 2012 by JJnTJ

[+T.D.M.22]

What about the possibility of that cache location-the park not specific location-having issues with caches? Or maybe the reviewer got in a little bit of trouble for being to lenient and wants to cover their arse with the EXACT same questions, just the same as a 10 year LEO will still read your rights from a card.I would have no problem with being asked those, in fact one location I nearly had to provide pictures to prove that cachers would not be at any safety risk.

[knowschad]

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

I can assure you that the number of someone's hides often has little to do with his knowledge of, or adherence to the guidelines.

 

So, does anyone know a reviewer that can simply answer the question as to whether or not this boilerplate text indicates a new policy for Groundspeak as a whole, a new policy for that particular area, a new policy for that particular reviewer, or a new policy for that particular hider?

[+The A-Team]

I can assure you that the number of someone's hides often has little to do with his knowledge of, or adherence to the guidelines.

So a doctor who has delivered hundreds of babies knows nothing about baby delivery ???????

Sorry, but an active cacher who has hid hundreds of caches over 10 years knows what he's doing. Will the cacher ( or doctor) ever be perfect...no, but the boiler plate won't make it perfect either.

You're absolutely correct, but not in the way you think you are.

A cacher who has buried caches, bored holes into trees, and placed caches on private property most likely knows exactly what they're doing. However, knowing what they're doing does not necessarily mean they're following the guidelines. For all we know, the OP may knowingly do all of the above*, while still ticking that box that says "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache." Knowing what they're doing doesn't mean they're a "good" hider.

 

I'm absolutely stunned that so many people would be offended by receiving this "questionnaire" from the reviewer. We all know there are caches hidden that don't adhere to the guidelines. It's crystal clear to me that the reviewer is just trying to prevent these violations by asking the hider to reiterate that their cache does adhere to at least these few guidelines (probably the most frequently violated). If our local reviewers started to do the same, I'd happily answer the questions every time. I certainly wouldn't expect them to be personalized, because the guidelines apply to everyone regardless of how many finds or hides you have, or how well you know the reviewer.

 

*Note that I'm not attacking the OP, just making a point. I'm sure they don't do that stuff.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

I can assure you that the number of someone's hides often has little to do with his knowledge of, or adherence to the guidelines.

 

So, does anyone know a reviewer that can simply answer the question as to whether or not this boilerplate text indicates a new policy for Groundspeak as a whole, a new policy for that particular area, a new policy for that particular reviewer, or a new policy for that particular hider?

 

That's a good question. I have two more.

 

Does anyone know if there was something in how the cache page was written that might have triggered the reviewer to respond by asking if all of the listing guidelines were met?

 

Does anyone know if sometime after the CO had talked with the land manager (about a month ago) that the geocaching policy for that park has remained the same?

 

Since we haven't seen the cache listing nor do we know what the geocaching policy might be when the listing was submitted we can only speculate on why the reviewer would have created that reviewer response.

 

Of course, the OP could have also answered the questions *and* asked the reviewer directly why there appeared to be a new policy.

[4wheelin_fool]

If there are changes appearing, it only indicates that they are adapting to various issues that have appeared.

That's been my experience. While I've only been around since 2005, (a rookie to some), it seems that just about every guideline change I've witnessed has been in response to some cacher pushing the envelope farther than it should be pushed. I'm not really sure how many caches I've hidden. My profile says 82, (after the events are deducted), but that doesn't account for the ones I've adopted out. Had I received such a note I would have simply shrugged, answered as best I could, and moved forward.

 

Well if they ask rookies those questions, it's only fair to ask veterans also. It would look bad for the reviewer to publish something that got geocaching banned in an area because they decided to only inquire to new hiders. I had a new reviewer ask me basically the same things recently, so I complied. Its not something that seems like it should cause distress

[+J the Goat]

Sorry to all the TB's I started the cache with, They'll be siting there for awhile. Maybe forever.

I can understand your frustration with the reviewer, but why would you punish fellow cachers by leaving their tb's unaccounted for?

B.

I didn't think it would be so hard to get a cache approved. I wasn't planning on hiking the 3+ miles to the final again the next day. Going out there for cache maintenance is once thing, and not expected for a few months at least, but I'm not going to hurry out there just so some silly tag can keep moving.

 

I find the whole thing a bit offensive. I clicked that I had read the guidelines and adhered to them. I've "Proven" myself 200 times, I answered the normal questions before they were asked. Yet I still get treated as if I can't read and have no idea what I'm doing.

 

I agree this list of questions would be helpful for a first time cache owner, or if the cache looks to be in a very urban area.

 

I'm against anything that is a brainless "must do this, just because" and "zero tolerance"

 

Why do these three questions require you to hike back out to the cache?

 

Maybe the cache doesn't meet a guideline regarding one of the questions asked so it can't be listed? Yes, it's another hoop to jump through. None of these things are new. Don't take it personally and either answer the questions, talk with the reviewer, or go pick up your garbage and put the TB's in another cache for people to actually move along.

[+The A-Team]

So, does anyone know a reviewer that can simply answer the question as to whether or not this boilerplate text indicates a new policy for Groundspeak as a whole, a new policy for that particular area, a new policy for that particular reviewer, or a new policy for that particular hider?

The reviewer that sent the questionnaire in question would be the most logical person to pose your question to.

[jholly]

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

I can assure you that the number of someone's hides often has little to do with his knowledge of, or adherence to the guidelines.

 

So, does anyone know a reviewer that can simply answer the question as to whether or not this boilerplate text indicates a new policy for Groundspeak as a whole, a new policy for that particular area, a new policy for that particular reviewer, or a new policy for that particular hider?

I think there was ample opportunity for the reviewers that have participated in this discussion to comment that this is a new policy from Groundspeak. So that will not be explained until we see a message from Sandy or Miss Jenn when the next update occurs and the guidelines are modified. As for the other three questions, my money is on we will never know unless an email is quoted.

[+cerberus1]

The added questionnaire/note being the issue, I can see where it looks like the question's asked, "Are you sure everything's okay?" may appear to be unnecessary or excessive.

- But I probably would've just filled it out and moved on, go caching and maybe improve on my DNF streak.

 

Maybe it'd be best (and due) for Groundspeak to simply spell it all out on the submission form, to be checked/answered individually.

Saves the reviewer a bit of time (if everything appears satisfactory), by not having to send out an additional, redundant questionaire after the submission.

[jholly]

The added questionnaire/note being the issue, I can see where it looks like the question's asked, "Are you sure everything's okay?" may appear to be unnecessary or excessive.

- But I probably would've just filled it out and moved on, go caching and maybe improve on my DNF streak.

 

Maybe it'd be best (and due) for Groundspeak to simply spell it all out on the submission form, to be checked/answered individually.

Saves the reviewer a bit of time (if everything appears satisfactory), by not having to send out an additional, redundant questionaire after the submission.

Of course if they put it on the submission form as a check off item it will be just like the other two check off items that everyone checks without actually reading the guidelines. I would rather Groundspeak leaves the submission forms alone, they have a track record of screwing up the simplest of website modifications and never fixing them.

 

The first question of the questionnaire is interesting, it will spell the death of the Wally World LPC's, and probably the death of LPC's in general. If this is going to become a general policy I'm sure the gang over at OC.com will see a sudden influx of unique caches listed on their site.

[+The Jester]

What's next? Caches put on hold until she can FTF, I mean check, each one personally?

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

The issue raised seems pretty darned credible coming from someone who has been a member since 2002 and has over 200 hides regardless of any other suggested ethical violations he may have raised.

 

I realize you feel the need to defend fellow reviewers, but perhaps you could confirm whether or not the OP actually addressed several of those questions in his reviewer note as he stated. Because if he did cover the permission issue ahead of time, I am curious why a boiler plate note was left.

 

We have discussed the use of boiler plates before. And had the OP not said anything, then maybe it was warranted. But if the OP has a proven track record over the course of 200+ hides, then maybe the use of a boiler plate note was not warranted.

 

I am in agreement with a reviewer not dropping a boilerplate note on a 200+ cache hider who joined in 2002. I think I'd be insulted myself. I'd vote for something a little more personal. Especially considering in this case they know who each other are and stuff. It's not like Joe Blow with 10 finds who joined last month is submitting his first hide or anything.

 

I can assure you that the number of someone's hides often has little to do with his knowledge of, or adherence to the guidelines.

 

So a doctor who has delivered hundreds of babies knows nothing about baby delivery ???????

Sorry, but an active cacher who has hid hundreds of caches over 10 years knows what he's doing. Will the cacher ( or doctor) ever be perfect...no, but the boiler plate won't make it perfect either.

Wrong question, wrong assumstion. Just because a doctor has "delivered hundreds of babies" doesn't mean he is 'up' on the newest research (I've been a first aider for many decades and have used CPR in the field, but still needed training in the newest techniques). So, it's not that he (doctor/hider) "knows nothing about ...", it's whether he is adhering to the lastest and best standard.

[+tozainamboku]

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

I can assure you that the number of someone's hides often has little to do with his knowledge of, or adherence to the guidelines.

 

So, does anyone know a reviewer that can simply answer the question as to whether or not this boilerplate text indicates a new policy for Groundspeak as a whole, a new policy for that particular area, a new policy for that particular reviewer, or a new policy for that particular hider?

 

My thought as well. But that doesn't keep me speculating.

 

My first response is just "Wow". Yep that "wow".

 

It just speculation on my part, but perhaps the reviewer has decided that there are enough caches in her area and is looking for a way to slow down the rate at which new caches are published. By automatically responding to submissions with a questionnaire that some submitters may be unwilling to answer you right away will get fewer caches published.

 

The answers to this questionnaire may provide the reviewer with information that is not normally available on the cache page that may indicate a cache is not in compliance with guidelines or not. That, of course, leads to speculation that Groundspeak is going require this information with all submissions. This review may have be chosen as a test area. Perhaps the goal is to detect certain guidelines violation that were slipping through. But once again the effect will be to publish fewer caches and have fewer caches being submitted.

 

With regard to briansnat's comment. While a person with a high number of hides may, in fact, have no better knowledge of the guidelines than a newbie, and certainly there is no guarantee that their next cache might not be in violation of guidelines; it is certainly true that this person has a record that the reviewer can look at. The reviewer would certainly be able to tell if the there were any complaints about guidelines violation from this cacher before. And I would think that if someone had a significant number of cache hides without complaints, you could reach a conclusion that they're not so likely to start drilling holes in trees now.

[Keystone]

It's fine to raise the issue for discussion, but you'd have more credibility if you refrained from personal attacks or unsubstantiated suggestions of ethical violations by your reviewer. Thank you.

 

I can assure you that the number of someone's hides often has little to do with his knowledge of, or adherence to the guidelines.

 

So, does anyone know a reviewer that can simply answer the question as to whether or not this boilerplate text indicates a new policy for Groundspeak as a whole, a new policy for that particular area, a new policy for that particular reviewer, or a new policy for that particular hider?

I'm surprised that my prior post has been quoted no fewer than 11 times as of this writing. It was a simple exercise of my moderator duties. Posting a necessary moderator warning doesn't obligate me to join the substance of the discussion. In fact, it's not possible for me or any other reviewer to assess the appropriateness of the reviewer's response to the OP's cache submission, because the OP has edited out the contents of their original reviewer note.

 

The questions could have been answered in one sentence, like this: "My cache is a lock 'n lock hidden alongside a fallen tree in X State Forest, which is cool with having more geocaches based on my conversation with the ranger a month ago." People who write reviewer notes like this tend to get their caches published quite quickly.

[+tozainamboku]

Just because a doctor has "delivered hundreds of babies" doesn't mean he is 'up' on the newest research (I've been a first aider for many decades and have used CPR in the field, but still needed training in the newest techniques). So, it's not that he (doctor/hider) "knows nothing about ...", it's whether he is adhering to the lastest and best standard.

 

This got me thinking along another track. In the past it hasn't been all that critical for a hider to keep up on the latest guidelines. True the reviewers need to know all the details and nuances, but a cache hider was good to go if they knew a few basic principles. And in fact the questionnaire seems to address these principles and not the details of of the guidelines.

 

1. Do you have adequate permission to place the cache?

2. Is the cache container properly identified? Could it mistaken for something dangerous?

3. Did hide the cache in a manner that does not damage or deface any property - public or private. Is your cache placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm?

 

There have been a number of suggestions for a feature to have a quiz that must be passed in order to hide a cache. I find the questions here perhaps the best set I have seen yet to show you understand the basic principles of the guidelines for cache placement. I think the issue is, "I checked the box that I read and understood the guidelines, so why is the reviewer asking me these questions." If Groundspeak wants to change the cache submission form from a single check box to three (to indicate you followed each of the principles) or to three text boxes where you give a short answer to the question this reviewer is asking, it is their prerogative.