Reviewers asking for too much info?

[+tozainamboku]

snip.

I understood that your response had to do with the off-the-cuff remark the OP made about the reviewer delaying publication in order to get an FTF on the cache. Of course forum regulars know that when we speculate that special care needs to be taken not to impugn the motives of a reviewer or anybody else.

 

In fact there seems to be plenty of reasons for a review to ask these questions that are far more likely than postponing publication till she can get the FTF.

 

I think you have been quoted here because you are seen as senior reviewer who might be able to shed some light on what is happening. Of course there is the possibility that the reviewer here is acting on her own ("rogue reviewer"?) and you have nothing to say. But we have speculated that this may be something that Groundspeak is looking at or that at the very least has been discussed in the reviewer forum. If that is the case, we would just like less secrecy and get a least a hint about what is going on.

[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?

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.

 

OK, so that implies, I think, that this is indeed a unique case between the OP and his reviewer, and does NOT represent an official global change in policy. Do I assume correctly?

[knowschad]

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.

Not really. The reviewers that have already seen this thread can answer my questions just as well.

[+SwineFlew]

Knowschad bought up very good questions and they need to be answered.

 

When I post a new cache listing up. I agree and clicked two check boxes "I have read and agree to the Terms of Use Agreement." and "I have read and understand the Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines."

 

If I clicked and agree with those two check boxes, I dont think its necessary for a reviewer to ask more questions, unless theres a red flag. This reviewer was asking everybody the same questions over and over is a over kill!

[Clan Riffster]

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.

I had to read that one twice before picking up on your interpretation of 'unique'.

[+Ike 13]

AT Geowoodstock the local reviewers mentioned that they started doing this so if local authorities had any questions or concerns about suspicious packages or the like they could easily look at the reviewer notes and tell them exactly where and how the cache is hidden plus what it should look like. Plus I bet most violations are due to ignorance and by pointing out common issues a new hider can learn.

 

If my local reviewer started doing this I'd be fine with it (most my listings already have what type of container to look for). I think the thing that would irritate me is the 'boilerplate' response, BUT as someone who does have to do a lot of emails it makes it quicker so I see both sides. I think in this case if you simply sent a reply back that answered those questions and said in a nonchalant way "hey what's going on, you know I've got lots of successful hides and would never do A, B, C". They would probably have just sent back a "Yea I want to make sure all future listings have A, B, C double checked because we've had lots of guideline issues in the area recently. It is nothing personal but if you ask one person to do A, B, C it is only fair to ask everyone." type response.

[Keystone]

They would probably have just sent back a "Yea I want to make sure all future listings have A, B, C double checked because we've had lots of guideline issues in the area recently. It is nothing personal but if you ask one person to do A, B, C it is only fair to ask everyone." type response.

Did you notice the "snip" in the OP's selective quoting of the reviewer note? You were paying very good attention to that discussion at Woodstock, because here are some of the "snipped" bits of the reviewer's initial form note:

 

As there have been a few problems with caches placed on private property without permission, and hides that do not fall within the geocaching.com guidelines, I'm asking EVERYONE to answer a few simple questions.

Generally speaking - the more information you can provide, the quicker the reviewing process goes, and the faster your cache gets published!

Edited September 17, 2012 by Keystone

[+The A-Team]

They would probably have just sent back a "Yea I want to make sure all future listings have A, B, C double checked because we've had lots of guideline issues in the area recently. It is nothing personal but if you ask one person to do A, B, C it is only fair to ask everyone." type response.

Did you notice the "snip" in the OP's selective quoting of the reviewer note? You were paying very good attention to that discussion at Woodstock, because here are some of the "snipped" bits of the reviewer's initial form note:

 

As there have been a few problems with caches placed on private property without permission, and hides that do not fall within the geocaching.com guidelines, I'm asking EVERYONE to answer a few simple questions.

Generally speaking - the more information you can provide, the quicker the reviewing process goes, and the faster your cache gets published!

Thanks for posting that for all of us to see. As usual, there's more to the story than we were originally given. By selectively leaving out the most critical (to this discussion) portions of the reviewer note, I'm almost positive now that the OP must have some beef with the reviewer and was just trying to make them look bad.

[+RIclimber]

Thanks for posting that for all of us to see. As usual, there's more to the story than we were originally given. By selectively leaving out the most critical (to this discussion) portions of the reviewer note, I'm almost positive now that the OP must have some beef with the reviewer and was just trying to make them look bad.

I have no problem with the reviewer as a person. She is a friend. I (along with MANY in this area) do not agree with how she acts as a reviewer, going back to when she took over. She was a bit too heavy-handed with her rules and using her powers when she first started, to the point of archiving caches with no warning.

 

The question was "Do you think this is asking too much info?" It looks like many/most of you are willing to have your cache disabled and wait longer because you need to answer a pile of questions that are not listed anywhere.

I will agree that a new box on the submission page to describe you cache container and how it's hidden would be useful. BUT it should be site wide and not just one person asking.

 

As I don't agree with how it's being done, I'll stop hiding caches in that area and will look for places a few miles west within another reviewers area. If things change for the better (in my view) I'll resume hiding caches in her area, or if it gets worse (again from my view) I'll simply list my "GPS stash boxes" on another listing website.

[+The A-Team]

The question was "Do you think this is asking too much info?" It looks like many/most of you are willing to have your cache disabled and wait longer because you need to answer a pile of questions that are not listed anywhere.

To answer your question: No, absolutely not. This has been a long time coming and I hope either more reviewers start doing the same or it gets incorporated into the submission form. Attempting to prevent guideline-violating caches can only be a good thing for geocaching.

 

I don't see "a pile of questions". I see three simple questions that can be answered within a minute or two at most. See Keystone's post here for an example of a response that would take no time to type up and would answer all 3 questions.

 

Even if it introduces a delay of an entire day, so what? If I'm submitting a cache to be published on a specific day, I'll be submitting it well in advance (see this guideline). Otherwise, why does it matter when it gets published?

 

And "questions that are not listed anywhere"? You might want to browse through the guidelines. They're all discussed in there:

Section 2 - Permission

Sections 1 and 2 - Appropriate and labelled container

Sections 3, 4, and 5 - Burying, damage/defacement, and harm to the environment

 

As I don't agree with how it's being done, I'll stop hiding caches in that area and will look for places a few miles west within another reviewers area. If things change for the better (in my view) I'll resume hiding caches in her area, or if it gets worse (again from my view) I'll simply list my "GPS stash boxes" on another listing website.

I give this threat of geocide a rating of 2. Next time try using some harsher language and use an even more minor issue as your soapbox.

[Clan Riffster]

The question was "Do you think this is asking too much info?"

No. Anything that requires roughly 5 seconds of my time, and helps Geocaching evolve into the public eye as a benign activity is worth doing.

[+RIclimber]

The question was "Do you think this is asking too much info?" It looks like many/most of you are willing to have your cache disabled and wait longer because you need to answer a pile of questions that are not listed anywhere.

To answer your question: No, absolutely not. This has been a long time coming and I hope either more reviewers start doing the same or it gets incorporated into the submission form. Attempting to prevent guideline-violating caches can only be a good thing for geocaching.

 

I don't see "a pile of questions". I see three simple questions that can be answered within a minute or two at most. See Keystone's post here for an example of a response that would take no time to type up and would answer all 3 questions.

 

Even if it introduces a delay of an entire day, so what? If I'm submitting a cache to be published on a specific day, I'll be submitting it well in advance (see this guideline). Otherwise, why does it matter when it gets published?

 

And "questions that are not listed anywhere"? You might want to browse through the guidelines. They're all discussed in there:

Section 2 - Permission

Sections 1 and 2 - Appropriate and labelled container

Sections 3, 4, and 5 - Burying, damage/defacement, and harm to the environment

 

As I don't agree with how it's being done, I'll stop hiding caches in that area and will look for places a few miles west within another reviewers area. If things change for the better (in my view) I'll resume hiding caches in her area, or if it gets worse (again from my view) I'll simply list my "GPS stash boxes" on another listing website.

I give this threat of geocide a rating of 2. Next time try using some harsher language and use an even more minor issue as your soapbox.

Yes, and I clicked the checkmark that I agreed to it. I can respond to the questions with whatever they want to hear, it doesn't change anything. I'll go stick a metal pipe covered with wires to a pole, but that's OK because I'll tell the reviewer it's a L&L in the bushes. I'll also give my cell number as the contact info for the land owner, it's not like she calls each one.

 

Will you give my geocide a 3 if I mention Opencaching by name? do do I need to say Terracaching?

Maybe this will do it:

I'm going to walk away now. I will not be placing anymore caches in the state, nor maintaining them.

Goodbye cruel world, goodbye.

[+The_Incredibles_]

If you want your geocide to be officially recognized, you will need to first fill out this handy form (unless you think it's too many questions. )

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=55007&hl=geocide

Edited September 17, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[knowschad]

(unless you think it's too many questions. )

Touche!

[+SwineFlew]

If you want your geocide to be officially recognized, you will need to first fill out this handy form (unless you think it's too many questions. )

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=55007&hl=geocide

 

hahaha.. love that one!!

[+Sol seaker]

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"

 

Hmmm, this might be the problem here.

You're taking this very personally, when you really have no evidence that it's personal.

 

You have no idea whether it's brainless or not.

 

I would suspect that there has been a problem in this area with this sort of thing, or perhaps in other similar lands in that area.

 

You're making some leaping assumptions here that very well may not be true. You have no way of knowing the real answers to those questions, so why jump to the conclusion that it's all about you?

[+Sol seaker]

 

Did you notice the "snip" in the OP's selective quoting of the reviewer note? You were paying very good attention to that discussion at Woodstock, because here are some of the "snipped" bits of the reviewer's initial form note:

 

As there have been a few problems with caches placed on private property without permission, and hides that do not fall within the geocaching.com guidelines, I'm asking EVERYONE to answer a few simple questions.

Generally speaking - the more information you can provide, the quicker the reviewing process goes, and the faster your cache gets published!

 

 

Ooooo, I'm a good guesser I guess.

Looks like there have been problems in that area.

 

Not about you. It's official.

You'll have to not take this one personally, and move on. Sorry.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Ooooo, I'm a good guesser I guess.

Looks like there have been problems in that area.

 

There have been these types of problems everywhere, not just MA.

 

Personnaly, I'd like to see something done *system wide* to prevent these types of permission issues (emphasis on SYSTEM WIDE). But it needs to be across all reviewers, so there is a common set of prcedures we all need to follow.

[+Car54]

Chiming in late, here. We've been around since 2004, but are not prolific hiders by any stretch of the imagination. A few months ago, we hid a couple and got a nice note from the reviewer asking for a description of the container and how it was hidden. We had never been asked that before, nor have any of our caches had permission problems. I thought it was kind of weird, but I answered the questions, got a "thanks" reply from the reviewer and the caches were published. My main thought was that it kind of spoils caching for the reviewer in the area they cover. It didn't bother me, but it did make me go, "huh?".

 

Mrs. Car54

[+Capt. Bob]

 

Did you notice the "snip" in the OP's selective quoting of the reviewer note? You were paying very good attention to that discussion at Woodstock, because here are some of the "snipped" bits of the reviewer's initial form note:

 

As there have been a few problems with caches placed on private property without permission, and hides that do not fall within the geocaching.com guidelines, I'm asking EVERYONE to answer a few simple questions.

Generally speaking - the more information you can provide, the quicker the reviewing process goes, and the faster your cache gets published!

 

Now that we know we are all guilty until proven innocent shouldn't the new (additional listing requirement) ALR be made official and not arbitrarily applied. It could be construed by some as abusive use of power. (You didn't say the magic words! Go to the end of the line.) Perhaps an affidavit (pdf format would be nice) attached to the submission form with areas for witness signatures next to the notary seal (or a retina scan, whichever is more convenient.) Anyone can check a box.

 

To assure uniformity among all geocaching members (most geocachers are liars, you know) the new ALR should be made retroactive. I would like to see Wal Mart's policy permitting cache placement in light poles and the state's policy permitting stop sign nano's for example. Only then can the cache page be afixed with a seal of approval from Geocache Central and Homeland Security (A golden medallion with apposing faces of Janet Napolitano and a frog).

 

BTW, I've received the questionnaire from the same reviewer and instead of complying I decided to archive the caches. After a period of time I submitted new requests for a different set of caches, but this time I used the magic words, and they were published without questions. You gotta game the system.

[Mr.Yuck]

Chiming in late, here. We've been around since 2004, but are not prolific hiders by any stretch of the imagination. A few months ago, we hid a couple and got a nice note from the reviewer asking for a description of the container and how it was hidden. We had never been asked that before, nor have any of our caches had permission problems. I thought it was kind of weird, but I answered the questions, got a "thanks" reply from the reviewer and the caches were published. My main thought was that it kind of spoils caching for the reviewer in the area they cover. It didn't bother me, but it did make me go, "huh?".

 

Mrs. Car54

 

A report from the OP in Mass., and now a report from Indiana. OK, I'm on board. Sign me up for these questions, as outline in the OP, being asked system-wide. This isn't going to bring on the oft referenced reviewer rebellion, is it?

[+GeoBain]

Ooooo, I'm a good guesser I guess.

Looks like there have been problems in that area.

 

There have been these types of problems everywhere, not just MA.

 

Personnaly, I'd like to see something done *system wide* to prevent these types of permission issues (emphasis on SYSTEM WIDE). But it needs to be across all reviewers, so there is a common set of prcedures we all need to follow.

 

+1

 

And instead of a questionaire in the form of a note, add it to the submission form so responsible hiders can deal with it up front.

[Pup Patrol]

Chiming in late, here. We've been around since 2004, but are not prolific hiders by any stretch of the imagination. A few months ago, we hid a couple and got a nice note from the reviewer asking for a description of the container and how it was hidden. We had never been asked that before, nor have any of our caches had permission problems. I thought it was kind of weird, but I answered the questions, got a "thanks" reply from the reviewer and the caches were published. My main thought was that it kind of spoils caching for the reviewer in the area they cover. It didn't bother me, but it did make me go, "huh?".

 

Mrs. Car54

 

I don't see how it would spoil it for the reviewer any more than previous. They already needed to know the coordinates, the additional coordinates to all stages of a multicache, and the "real" coordinates of puzzles.

 

In a recent update to the Guidelines, hiders must now explain how a puzzle is to be solved:

 

2. Mystery/Puzzle Caches

 

The information needed to solve this type cache must be available to the general community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page.

 

For many caches of this type, the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location, but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. The posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles (2-3 km) away from the true cache location. This allows the cache to show up on the appropriate vicinity searches and means that the mileage of Trackables passing through the cache will be reasonably accurate. Add the final set of coordinates and any additional waypoints to the cache listing before submitting for review.

 

Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved. This log will auto-delete on publication.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=308

 

I'm seeing this as proactive on Groundspeak's part. Maybe they've had enough of bomb scares, and angry land owners or managers that didn't give permission for a cache placement.

 

Not sure why people take this sort of thing personally. On the other hand, perhaps some sort of communication from Groundspeak ahead of this type of change would have prevented a lot of angst.

 

At least a note from the local reviewers explaining that "it isn't you specifically, this is the new normal" would help.

 

 

B.

[+Too Tall John]

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.

Not only that, but the entire analogy is skewed. A doctor has proof that they have the knowledge necessary to deliver a baby: at least a couple Diplomas and at least one Licence. This situation is more like someone claiming to be a doctor because they have been in a delivery room hundreds of times. It doesn't mean they have any knowledge of what might go wrong, or what to do about it. They might, but they might not.

 

Even if the OP is a "Doctor" of hiding caches, what doctor do you know would get upset at the pharmacy when they have to sign the "I refuse consultation from the Pharmacist" agreement? Just do it and be done. If the doctor has too much pride to admit that they don't know the side effects of the drug, that's their problem. In the same way, guidelines infractions that (in my opinion) are why this whole issue came up, are the problem of the OP.

 

Edit: I'll let this post stand, but it'll make more sense knowing I didn't notice there was a second page. Oops...

Edited September 17, 2012 by Too Tall John

[+BAMBOOZLE]

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.

Not only that, but the entire analogy is skewed. A doctor has proof that they have the knowledge necessary to deliver a baby: at least a couple Diplomas and at least one Licence. This situation is more like someone claiming to be a doctor because they have been in a delivery room hundreds of times. It doesn't mean they have any knowledge of what might go wrong, or what to do about it. They might, but they might not.

 

Even if the OP is a "Doctor" of hiding caches, what doctor do you know would get upset at the pharmacy when they have to sign the "I refuse consultation from the Pharmacist" agreement? Just do it and be done. If the doctor has too much pride to admit that they don't know the side effects of the drug, that's their problem. In the same way, guidelines infractions that (in my opinion) are why this whole issue came up, are the problem of the OP.

 

Edit: I'll let this post stand, but it'll make more sense knowing I didn't notice there was a second page. Oops...

 

A geocacher who has cached ACTIVELY for 10 years and hidden HUNDREDS of caches during this period of time knows how to hide caches.

If they don't, who would.....you may as well through everyone under the bus.

[+GeoBain]

If you're going to boilerplate every hider, then it's time to update the submission form. period.

[+tozainamboku]

Ooooo, I'm a good guesser I guess.

Looks like there have been problems in that area.

 

There have been these types of problems everywhere, not just MA.

 

Personnaly, I'd like to see something done *system wide* to prevent these types of permission issues (emphasis on SYSTEM WIDE). But it needs to be across all reviewers, so there is a common set of prcedures we all need to follow.

 

+1

 

And instead of a questionaire in the form of a note, add it to the submission form so responsible hiders can deal with it up front.

This may be where we are ultimately headed, but I would not rush into it so quickly.

 

It's clear that some reviewers can get gun-shy if they published a cache that later turned into problem. This is particularly true if the problem could have been prevented by the cache actually following the guidelines.

 

Groundspeak has always had the fall back of saying that cache hiders checked a box on the form and reviewers can only assume that the cache follows the guidelines. When a reviewer becomes aware of a violation they can archive the cache.

 

What would change by requiring answers to these questions? Once again the reviewers can only assume that the submitter is telling the truth. When there is a complaint these caches will be archived just as quickly as one that only checked a box.

 

Perhaps the main difference will be caches that don't meet the guidelines, or that are borderline, won't get published even when there are unlikely to ever cause a problem. I imagine that we could have a lively debate over whether this is good or bad.

 

It is clear that some reviewers have wanted to have more information to make decisions on whether to publish caches.

 

First they would like to have cache hiders provide a statement as to why the cache has adequate permission. I think it is likely that most cachers don't get explicit permission for their caches. They use the "Frisbee rule" or something similar, of if there are already other caches on similar properties they make the assumption that the policy of that owner or manager is to allow caches. If a reviewer feels the "Frisbee rule" or the fact that there are already caches on that property is not adequate, they or Groundspeak are going to have provide better definition of what is adequate. In the end this could significantly reduce the numbers of caches that get placed.

 

Second they would like to know that container is not likely to be confused for something dangerous. We all know that the there have been incidents when the bomb squad has been called out to dispose of a suspicious item that turned out the be a geocache. Now there may be some examples where there is general consensus - like covering the military markings on an ammo can - but the reality is that what looks dangerous or suspicious is different to different people. Clearly labelled Tupperware contains have been reported. Reviewers can certainly remind people of certain best practices in choosing and marking a container. Whether or not they should hold publication based on the answer to this question is another matter.

 

Third they have little idea when reviewing a cache page if a hole was dug to hide the cache or if a nail was hammered into a tree. They only know of incidents where a cache was perceived as defacing or damaging property that have resulted in serious consequences for geocaching in that area. They would like to know if the cache was hidden in a way that causes damage or may impact a sensitive environment. Once again, while there are some guidelines where there is a consensus, there are many issues here where their is still debate. Even this reviewer's questionnaire raise an issue as to whether a nail or a zip tie would cause more harm to a tree. There is also a question of just how much information a person is likely to reveal about their hide. Would saying "the cache is under a pile of rocks" be sufficient if the cache was under a pile of rock from a collapsed section of an historic or archeologically significant stone wall?

 

I'd like to see some evidence that this approach significantly improves the review process and reduces the number of problem cache incidents. If Groundspeak wants to have some test program where a few reviewers ask these questions to see if it actually helps, that is fine with me. Though I would like a statement to the effect that this what they are doing.

[Pup Patrol]

If you're going to boilerplate every hider, then it's time to update the submission form. period.

 

Yes, that would make sense.

 

Should the changes be made to the new submission form which is still buggy, or should there be a new "new" submission form created?

 

 

 

B.

[jholly]

If you're going to boilerplate every hider, then it's time to update the submission form. period.

If this becomes common practice then everyone will provide the answers that make the reviewer happy and nothing will be gained. I mean, really, is the reviewer going to call every contact person to make sure the permission was really given? If so the number of reviewers will increase ten fold. Regardless the answer to container type is a clear, labeled lock'n'lock. How will the reviewer know otherwise unless they go and look. And, of course, the container is on the ground covered with sticks. I fail to see what gain is made other than to make the reviewers job even more hard and extend the review times even more. They want answers, no problem, they will get answers. It will be just like the two boxes everyone checks without really reading the guidelines.

[+GeoBain]

If you're going to boilerplate every hider, then it's time to update the submission form. period.

If this becomes common practice then everyone will provide the answers that make the reviewer happy and nothing will be gained. I mean, really, is the reviewer going to call every contact person to make sure the permission was really given? If so the number of reviewers will increase ten fold. Regardless the answer to container type is a clear, labeled lock'n'lock. How will the reviewer know otherwise unless they go and look. And, of course, the container is on the ground covered with sticks. I fail to see what gain is made other than to make the reviewers job even more hard and extend the review times even more. They want answers, no problem, they will get answers. It will be just like the two boxes everyone checks without really reading the guidelines.

 

Did you miss where keystone quoted the reviewer? The reviewer in question is apparently asking EVERYONE (the reviewer put that in caps) to provide this information. If that leads to people treating the questionaire like the 2 boxes at the end of the submission form, so be it. But I still say if you are going to ask EVERYONE to answer those questions, it needs to be handled up front during the submission process.

 

Otherwise, you should ask for that information when that information is actually needed.

 

Did you notice the "snip" in the OP's selective quoting of the reviewer note? You were paying very good attention to that discussion at Woodstock, because here are some of the "snipped" bits of the reviewer's initial form note:

 

As there have been a few problems with caches placed on private property without permission, and hides that do not fall within the geocaching.com guidelines, I'm asking EVERYONE to answer a few simple questions.

[+GeoBain]

BTW, in case anyone hasn't been paying attention, permission and other guideline issues have been a problem everywhere for as long as I have been caching. This is not an isolated issue to one reviewer's area. And frankly the questions make sense.

 

But there are a lot of conscientious hiders who do their very best to cover all their bases when hiding caches. And it is a little silly to make them jump through hoops after they have submitted their cache for review. These same hiders would likely have no problem with filling this information out if it was included in the form along with all the other required information.

[+SwineFlew]

BTW, in case anyone hasn't been paying attention, permission and other guideline issues have been a problem everywhere for as long as I have been caching. This is not an isolated issue to one reviewer's area. And frankly the questions make sense.

 

But there are a lot of conscientious hiders who do their very best to cover all their bases when hiding caches. And it is a little silly to make them jump through hoops after they have submitted their cache for review. These same hiders would likely have no problem with filling this information out if it was included in the form along with all the other required information.

 

+1

[Mr.Yuck]

Ooooo, I'm a good guesser I guess.

Looks like there have been problems in that area.

 

There have been these types of problems everywhere, not just MA.

 

Personnaly, I'd like to see something done *system wide* to prevent these types of permission issues (emphasis on SYSTEM WIDE). But it needs to be across all reviewers, so there is a common set of prcedures we all need to follow.

 

+1

 

And instead of a questionaire in the form of a note, add it to the submission form so responsible hiders can deal with it up front.

 

I'd like to see some evidence that this approach significantly improves the review process and reduces the number of problem cache incidents. If Groundspeak wants to have some test program where a few reviewers ask these questions to see if it actually helps, that is fine with me. Though I would like a statement to the effect that this what they are doing.

 

I would like a statement too. Is this a "test program" in certain areas? Is this one of those "reviewer discretion" things? For example, the two reviewers in my State appear to be asking for explicit permission for cemetery hides the last few months. I would file that under reviewer discretion.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

First they would like to have cache hiders provide a statement as to why the cache has adequate permission. I think it is likely that most cachers don't get explicit permission for their caches. They use the "Frisbee rule" or something similar, of if there are already other caches on similar properties they make the assumption that the policy of that owner or manager is to allow caches. If a reviewer feels the "Frisbee rule" or the fact that there are already caches on that property is not adequate, they or Groundspeak are going to have provide better definition of what is adequate. In the end this could significantly reduce the numbers of caches that get placed.

 

In Rhode Island state parks & WMAs, geocaches are allowed. There is no official statement/reg/law in place, but the powers that be are aware of the game, and have embraced it (they have talks and presnetations at State run events in the parks/forests). What "proof" would I need to provide (for every cache I submit) that this is in place? Or do I just provide the DEM director's name and her office number?

 

If the "frisbee rule" or "there's one there already rule" is inadequate for new caches, then should the "I need more info" apply retroactively to all caches? If GS is going to accept some level of "liability/responsibility", they had better do it for all caches. That's a pretty big (and scary) genie to uncork.

[+bflentje]

If you want your geocide to be officially recognized, you will need to first fill out this handy form (unless you think it's too many questions. )

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=55007&hl=geocide

 

Grow up.

[+Too Tall John]

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.

Not only that, but the entire analogy is skewed. A doctor has proof that they have the knowledge necessary to deliver a baby: at least a couple Diplomas and at least one Licence. This situation is more like someone claiming to be a doctor because they have been in a delivery room hundreds of times. It doesn't mean they have any knowledge of what might go wrong, or what to do about it. They might, but they might not.

 

Even if the OP is a "Doctor" of hiding caches, what doctor do you know would get upset at the pharmacy when they have to sign the "I refuse consultation from the Pharmacist" agreement? Just do it and be done. If the doctor has too much pride to admit that they don't know the side effects of the drug, that's their problem. In the same way, guidelines infractions that (in my opinion) are why this whole issue came up, are the problem of the OP.

 

Edit: I'll let this post stand, but it'll make more sense knowing I didn't notice there was a second page. Oops...

A geocacher who has cached ACTIVELY for 10 years and hidden HUNDREDS of caches during this period of time knows how to hide caches.

If they don't, who would.....you may as well through everyone under the bus.

Your first statement isn't necessarily true. To answer the question of if not a 10 year cacher with hundreds of hides, who would know how to hide a cache: Anyone who read and understood the guidelines/knowledgebooks.

 

Your suggestion that everyone get through^[sic] under the bus appears to be the direction Groundspeak is going, if the part Downy288 left out in the OP about this becoming a standard set of questions is true.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Too Tall John

[knowschad]

A geocacher who has cached ACTIVELY for 10 years and hidden HUNDREDS of caches during this period of time knows how to hide caches.

If they don't, who would.....you may as well through everyone under the bus.

Ah, but they also know how to get around a reviewer and guidelines.

[knowschad]

If you're going to boilerplate every hider, then it's time to update the submission form. period.

 

Is "boilerplate" a verb ?

 

Sorry... we can get back to the topic now

 

Should the changes be made to the new submission form which is still buggy, or should there be a new "new" submission form created?

 

 

B.

I'd opt for a new form, with a link to the old form without those additional questions.

Edited September 17, 2012 by knowschad

[+SwineFlew]

If you're going to boilerplate every hider, then it's time to update the submission form. period.

 

Is "boilerplate" a verb ?

 

Sorry... we can get back to the topic now

 

Should the changes be made to the new submission form which is still buggy, or should there be a new "new" submission form created?

 

 

B.

I'd opt for a new form, with a link to the old form without those additional questions.

Yep, he used the word boilerplate as a verb. Its understood. Next!

[+Lexmarks567]

also for the question that says if you got permission please state a contact. Whats to prevent a hider from giving out his or her best friends phone number or address to act as a land owner and have them say oh yeah I gave permission for that cache etc. Maybe having hiders upload a photo of the hiding spot for the reviewer that gets deleted after it's published would cut down on allot of these caches that are dangerous or do not meet the requirements.

[+GeoBain]

If you're going to boilerplate every hider, then it's time to update the submission form. period.

 

Is "boilerplate" a verb ?

It is now.

 

Maybe having hiders upload a photo of the hiding spot for the reviewer that gets deleted after it's published would cut down on allot of these caches that are dangerous or do not meet the requirements.

 

You'd be surprised how many geocachers do not have cameras or at least claim not to have them.

[+Don_J]

 

Did you notice the "snip" in the OP's selective quoting of the reviewer note? You were paying very good attention to that discussion at Woodstock, because here are some of the "snipped" bits of the reviewer's initial form note:

 

As there have been a few problems with caches placed on private property without permission, and hides that do not fall within the geocaching.com guidelines, I'm asking EVERYONE to answer a few simple questions.

Generally speaking - the more information you can provide, the quicker the reviewing process goes, and the faster your cache gets published!

 

Now that we know we are all guilty until proven innocent shouldn't the new (additional listing requirement) ALR be made official and not arbitrarily applied. It could be construed by some as abusive use of power. (You didn't say the magic words! Go to the end of the line.) Perhaps an affidavit (pdf format would be nice) attached to the submission form with areas for witness signatures next to the notary seal (or a retina scan, whichever is more convenient.) Anyone can check a box.

 

To assure uniformity among all geocaching members (most geocachers are liars, you know) the new ALR should be made retroactive. I would like to see Wal Mart's policy permitting cache placement in light poles and the state's policy permitting stop sign nano's for example. Only then can the cache page be afixed with a seal of approval from Geocache Central and Homeland Security (A golden medallion with apposing faces of Janet Napolitano and a frog).

 

BTW, I've received the questionnaire from the same reviewer and instead of complying I decided to archive the caches. After a period of time I submitted new requests for a different set of caches, but this time I used the magic words, and they were published without questions. You gotta game the system.

 

I checked the box saying that I understand the guidelines and my cache is within them when I submitted the cache. When I hide my next one, if they want detailed information of what the container is and how it is hidden, so be it. I'll recover the container and never hide another. Yes, I'll take my toys and go home. What's the point of playing if they are going to suck all the fun out of it.

 

At the time of this post, the main page says that there are 1,889,549 active geocaches. Roll this out worldwide and we can watch that number drop for the first time in ten years.

 

And, as far as those who say that everyone needs to be treated equally, I say nonsense. I have hidden 175 caches. I have never had a reviewer note posted to any of my caches after they have been published. I have had one single Needs Archived posted for a cache that was in a very remote area and I couldn't get to because I was recovering from an extended illness. (The NA post said that if I couldn't get to it, I should probably archive it. I agreed and did so before the reviewer could even respond.) I welcome and respond to all Needs Maintenance logs appropriately. I have built a reputation as being a responsible cache owner that stays within the guidelines. I deserve to be respected for that, not lumped in with a smartphone cacher that is hiding his first cache with a one day old account. Does that mean that I deserve carte blanche? Of course not, but it should indicate that I don't need extra scrutiny.

[+The A-Team]

And, as far as those who say that everyone needs to be treated equally, I say nonsense. I have hidden 175 caches. I have never had a reviewer note posted to any of my caches after they have been published. I have had one single Needs Archived posted for a cache that was in a very remote area and I couldn't get to because I was recovering from an extended illness. (The NA post said that if I couldn't get to it, I should probably archive it. I agreed and did so before the reviewer could even respond.) I welcome and respond to all Needs Maintenance logs appropriately. I have built a reputation as being a responsible cache owner that stays within the guidelines. I deserve to be respected for that, not lumped in with a smartphone cacher that is hiding his first cache with a one day old account. Does that mean that I deserve carte blanche? Of course not, but it should indicate that I don't need extra scrutiny.

If hiders shouldn't be treated equally, where do they draw the line? I agree by your rationale that you would fall in the "good" hider category. Clearly, a hider with tons of NA, NM, Reviewer Note and negative logs would fall under the "bad" category. At which point does a bad hider turn into a good hider? That is, who should get extra scrutiny, and who shouldn't? Drawing this line in a specific spot is difficult to do, because there aren't two distinct groups of "good" and "bad". There's a very wide grey area in between. What about a hider that has a couple of problem caches, but dozens of good ones? Do they get extra scrutiny? It's a slippery slope issue, so the simplest and fairest thing to do would be to apply it to everyone.

[Mr.Yuck]

Here's an update. Two parking lot turds were published in my area yesterday. So there is no boilerplate questionnaire in New York. Just kidding. I should be submitting my first cache since March over the weekend, so I will let you know if the reviewer personally insults me by making me answer questions from boilerplate questionnaire. If he does, I'll just place all my caches in a different State. Just kidding again.

[+briansnat]

And, as far as those who say that everyone needs to be treated equally, I say nonsense. I have hidden 175 caches. I have never had a reviewer note posted to any of my caches after they have been published. I have had one single Needs Archived posted for a cache that was in a very remote area and I couldn't get to because I was recovering from an extended illness. (The NA post said that if I couldn't get to it, I should probably archive it. I agreed and did so before the reviewer could even respond.) I welcome and respond to all Needs Maintenance logs appropriately. I have built a reputation as being a responsible cache owner that stays within the guidelines. I deserve to be respected for that, not lumped in with a smartphone cacher that is hiding his first cache with a one day old account. Does that mean that I deserve carte blanche? Of course not, but it should indicate that I don't need extra scrutiny.

If hiders shouldn't be treated equally, where do they draw the line? I agree by your rationale that you would fall in the "good" hider category. Clearly, a hider with tons of NA, NM, Reviewer Note and negative logs would fall under the "bad" category. At which point does a bad hider turn into a good hider? That is, who should get extra scrutiny, and who shouldn't? Drawing this line in a specific spot is difficult to do, because there aren't two distinct groups of "good" and "bad". There's a very wide grey area in between. What about a hider that has a couple of problem caches, but dozens of good ones? Do they get extra scrutiny? It's a slippery slope issue, so the simplest and fairest thing to do would be to apply it to everyone.

 

Well said A Team. I have over 10 years in this sport and over 330 hides. If I received that sort of note from my reviewer I'd happily answer his questions, and on all future submissions I'd address them in a note to reviewer so he didn't have to ask again. I don't feel entitled to special treatment because I have a certain number of hides or years in the game.

 

I don't know exactly what drove the reviewer in question to add that note as a part of the review process, but I have noticed a huge increase in the past couple years of the percentage of cache owners who check that box saying they read and understood the guidelines, but obviously did no such thing. Unfortunately, as with many other things in life, the responsible have to pay for the actions of the irresponsible.

Edited September 18, 2012 by briansnat

[+Don_J]

And, as far as those who say that everyone needs to be treated equally, I say nonsense. I have hidden 175 caches. I have never had a reviewer note posted to any of my caches after they have been published. I have had one single Needs Archived posted for a cache that was in a very remote area and I couldn't get to because I was recovering from an extended illness. (The NA post said that if I couldn't get to it, I should probably archive it. I agreed and did so before the reviewer could even respond.) I welcome and respond to all Needs Maintenance logs appropriately. I have built a reputation as being a responsible cache owner that stays within the guidelines. I deserve to be respected for that, not lumped in with a smartphone cacher that is hiding his first cache with a one day old account. Does that mean that I deserve carte blanche? Of course not, but it should indicate that I don't need extra scrutiny.

If hiders shouldn't be treated equally, where do they draw the line? I agree by your rationale that you would fall in the "good" hider category. Clearly, a hider with tons of NA, NM, Reviewer Note and negative logs would fall under the "bad" category. At which point does a bad hider turn into a good hider? That is, who should get extra scrutiny, and who shouldn't? Drawing this line in a specific spot is difficult to do, because there aren't two distinct groups of "good" and "bad". There's a very wide grey area in between. What about a hider that has a couple of problem caches, but dozens of good ones? Do they get extra scrutiny? It's a slippery slope issue, so the simplest and fairest thing to do would be to apply it to everyone.

 

Well said A Team. I have over 10 years in this sport and over 330 hides. If I received that sort of note from my reviewer I'd happily answer his questions, and on all future submissions I'd address them in a note to reviewer so he didn't have to ask again. I don't feel entitled to special treatment because I have a certain number of hides or years in the game.

 

I don't know exactly what drove the reviewer in question to add that note as a part of the review process, but I have noticed a huge increase in the past couple years of the percentage of cache owners who check that box saying they read and understood the guidelines, but obviously did no such thing. Unfortunately, as with many other things in life, the responsible have to pay for the actions of the irresponsible.

 

I'm going to back off a bit because I understand that I, nor anyone else, deserves special treatment. I do wish that that those that have a reputation for hiding problem caches could get some special attention, and this may be the only way to do that. It occurs to me that with so many people involved now, my reviewer may not know me from Adam, especially since he has never had a problem with me or my caches. I do think that if the reviewers are going to have to review for not just the guidelines but for common sense as well, we are going to have a reviewer burn out. As far as checking the boxes without actually reading what you are checking. That can get you in a lot of trouble. I have downloaded software that actually said in the EULA, (that no one reads), that I was agreeing to allow the software to use my address book in any way that they wanted.

[4wheelin_fool]

I think they are only trying to eliminate the "note to reviewer" area being left blank. As Keystone noted, a one sentence reply can be used to satisfy most reviewers questions.

 

When a cache gets published that is afoul of the guidelines it is either because the cacher lied to the reviewer or did not communicate anything about the cache. I suppose most illegal caches would fall under non-communication, as the liars would eventually be found out one time or another and most people would not want to be caught lying.

 

After hiding 166 caches over 10 years (and 347 under my other 12 sock accounts), I am NOT insulted in the least to provide such a simple answer. After having caches banned in some areas and fees and permits imposed, I would gladly cooperate, and would like to see something new imposed that results in less muggle regulation. Those caches which run afoul of the guidelines are the same ones which hurt other cachers who are hiding caches under the guidelines. A turd filter won't stop all of them, but would definitely cut down on the amount of fecal matter floating about .

[+ArcherDragoon]

What is Fair isn't always equal...What is equal isn't always fair.

 

To post my own opinion to the question asked...nope, I do not feel it is too many questions to be asked by a reviewer.

[+Too Tall John]

Just reviewed the thread again, and everybody who is up in arms are overlooking something as far as I can tell. One of the stated reasons for the questions is not, in fact, to make sure you are following the rules. It is to be held as a Reviewer Note that can be referred to in the future should a question of permission and/or "suspicious packages" ever be brought up by LEO/TPTB (local, not Groundspeak!). Most forum dwellers know that Reviewer Notes aren't Deleted, but Archived, so can be seen by TPTB (Groundspeak!).

 

Stop feeling insulted/entitled and start being proactive. Answer the %#@^% questions so the bomb squad doesn't have to blow your cache to smithereens.

 

Or go take your toys and play in someone else's sandbox. Not even my three-year-old thinks that's a good idea.

 

Hmm... "Smithereens" is recognized by my spellcheck as a word.

 

Hrm... "Spellcheck" isn't.

[jholly]

Just reviewed the thread again, and everybody who is up in arms are overlooking something as far as I can tell. One of the stated reasons for the questions is not, in fact, to make sure you are following the rules. It is to be held as a Reviewer Note that can be referred to in the future should a question of permission and/or "suspicious packages" ever be brought up by LEO/TPTB (local, not Groundspeak!). Most forum dwellers know that Reviewer Notes aren't Deleted, but Archived, so can be seen by TPTB (Groundspeak!).

 

Stop feeling insulted/entitled and start being proactive. Answer the %#@^% questions so the bomb squad doesn't have to blow your cache to smithereens.

 

Or go take your toys and play in someone else's sandbox. Not even my three-year-old thinks that's a good idea.

 

Hmm... "Smithereens" is recognized by my spellcheck as a word.

 

Hrm... "Spellcheck" isn't.

The problem with that thought is that the LEO does not wander into the WalMart to ask the manager if (s)he gave permission to hide a geocache under the lamp post skirt, or did the little old lady with the smartphone really see a terrorist planting a compact nuclear device. And once the bomb squad is called to a suspicious package something is going to go boom, regardless of how many people stand there and say it is a geocache. And really, the bomb squad is not going to consult Groundspeak to see if there is a reviewer note explaining this suspicious package. And given the number of bomb squad stories posted in this forum, the container, the size of the container, the labeling of the container, if the container was painted or not really does not seem to matter. Shoot, they even blew up an ammo box out in the middle of the desert!

 

No, the questions are simply the reviewer doing some good old fashion CYA.