Jump to content

Reviewers asking for too much info?


RIclimber

Recommended Posts

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.

Repeat after me: "DANGEROUS is not a guideline violation."

Yep! I got a dangerous cache out there.

 

I am sure the reviewer wont tell you to rate a dangerous cache correctly as well.

Link to comment

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!).

 

Yes, but from all indications, it is exceedingly rare that anybody is contacted when a suspicious package is called, let alone the reviewer that published it. And from what we have seen, even if an exact description of container and hiding style was provided, bomb squad action would almost certainly take place anyway... "just in case".

Link to comment

What about this idea: the requesting of contact information is for when somebody in the future calls into question the permission? Example: Knowschad places a cache in the flower bed in front of his favorite pretty dress store. I go find the cache, and in my grumpy state I post an NA log for the cache being on private property. Reviewer X calls said number, talks to contact person, finds out that KC had permission from Pretty Dress Shop owner to hide said cache in the flower bed. Issue solved.

 

This is just speculation on my part. It makes sense to me.

 

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge about Knowschad's dress preference, flower preference, or permission obtaining preference. I just read one of his posts and figured he wouldn't mind being used as an example of a "flowerbed at at pretty dress shop" cache hider.

Link to comment

After reading three pages of this, I'm just curious ...

 

If more and more reviewers are going to start asking submitters to verify that their cache satisfies the guidelines, even after the user clicked the box that says "This cache satisfies the guidelines", is there any point in having the checkbox anymore?

Link to comment

Two weeks ago I submitted two caches to be reviewed on the same day. One under my account, the other as a first hide for my 5 yr old son. His cache is a 1/ 1.5 that is on a median across the street from his school. The cache is far enough away from the school and there are trees that partially camouflage seekers, so nobody looking out of the school should be suspicious. I posted a reviewer note prior to submission saying this and it got published without question.

 

My cache, a 2.5/ 3 which is 16ft up in a tree in a public park, received a reviewers note asking me to describe in detail the type of container and how it was hidden. This was the first time I had ever been questioned on a cache after 98 hides. The cache page and hint clearly say that it is up in a tree so I suspect he was looking for how it was attached to the tree. I more than happily answered his questions and the cache was published.

 

Take a look at both caches and maybe you can see what triggered the reviewer note on one and not the other.

 

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.

+1 After having received the reviewers note this is exactly what I was thinking. The same way I posted a note on my son's cache about the proximity to the school (knowing it might be seen as an issue), I will make it my goal to provide as much info as possible to the reviewer so that they don't have to question my cache.

Edited by slukster
Link to comment

What about this idea: the requesting of contact information is for when somebody in the future calls into question the permission? Example: Knowschad places a cache in the flower bed in front of his favorite pretty dress store. I go find the cache, and in my grumpy state I post an NA log for the cache being on private property. Reviewer X calls said number, talks to contact person, finds out that KC had permission from Pretty Dress Shop owner to hide said cache in the flower bed. Issue solved.

 

This is just speculation on my part. It makes sense to me.

 

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge about Knowschad's dress preference, flower preference, or permission obtaining preference. I just read one of his posts and figured he wouldn't mind being used as an example of a "flowerbed at at pretty dress shop" cache hider.

 

Oh, geeze... thanks a lot for the spoiler on my dress store cache! :mad:

Link to comment

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.

:laughing:

 

http://www.geocachin...85-ae88639a12b2

 

Downy288 found 8.gif Taunton River Paddle Trail I

Sunday, 16 September 2012 Massachusetts

 

 

 

:lol:

Link to comment

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.

:laughing:

 

http://www.geocachin...85-ae88639a12b2

 

Downy288 found 8.gif Taunton River Paddle Trail I

Sunday, 16 September 2012 Massachusetts

 

 

 

:lol:

 

Now that I'm not placing 100's of caches, I have time to find some!

Link to comment

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.

:laughing:

Now that I'm not placing 100's of caches, I have time to find some!

 

See, now, if you're still finding caches and haven't archived anything, that's not considered a geocide. We'll have to come up with another term for it. :unsure:

Link to comment

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.

:laughing:

Now that I'm not placing 100's of caches, I have time to find some!

 

See, now, if you're still finding caches and haven't archived anything, that's not considered a geocide. We'll have to come up with another term for it. :unsure:

Tantrum and/or power-struggle.

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

Not necessarily. Most hiders who have been around more than a week know that the hiding, submission and publishing process is ever evolving, and retain enough flexibility to adapt to change. A small percentage do not. These few tend to take umbrage at change, believing that it is somehow being personally directed at them. Often, these few turn into drama queens, ranting on mostly public forums about how they've been treated, and threaten to quit playing.

 

I would say that person has no clue how to hide a cache.

 

...and on all future submissions I'd address them in a note to reviewer so he didn't have to ask again.

That person knows how to hide caches. B)

 

Roll this out worldwide and we can watch that number drop for the first time in ten years.

So long as folks with smart phones can still cram film cans under shrubbery every 529' along mundane roadways, 'that number' will do nothing but rise.

Link to comment

Downy, don't quit. The questions asked were because of the evolution of the game. Groundspeak has to keep a balance between players and land managers, or we might as well throw out our GPSrs. Reviewers are busier today than ever, and maybe this one didn't have time to stop and write out a personalized note. They have templates for the many submissions they have to review. It's not worth the worry. Just work with them, and they'll work with you. No need to walk away. It's really not as big a deal as this thread makes it out to be.

I met Downy years ago, when he was still a kid, and a few times since. He's a nice guy! So cut it out.

 

Darn! I missed the paddle event, because I was at another paddle event!

Link to comment

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.

:laughing:

Now that I'm not placing 100's of caches, I have time to find some!

 

See, now, if you're still finding caches and haven't archived anything, that's not considered a geocide. We'll have to come up with another term for it. :unsure:

Tantrum and/or power-struggle.

 

Just a simple geo-rant. Nothing more. You can't have a geocide, and then answer a forum post about your cache logging. Everybody knows that!

Link to comment

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.

:laughing:

Now that I'm not placing 100's of caches, I have time to find some!

 

See, now, if you're still finding caches and haven't archived anything, that's not considered a geocide. We'll have to come up with another term for it. :unsure:

Tantrum and/or power-struggle.

 

Just a simple geo-rant. Nothing more. You can't have a geocide, and then answer a forum post about your cache logging. Everybody knows that!

I NEVER said that I was going to quit caching. I simply said I'd move my cache hides to another state. If that didn't work, another listing website.

 

At this point everyone has forgotten the facts.

 

1. Last I knew (when I talked to the ranger) there was no formal permission needed in most state parks. When I asked, it was "Yes, we allow them". The reviewer should know that, AND I had posted that it was given anyway.

 

2. My hint told how and where the cache was hidden. That's 2 questions already answered.

 

3. This is miles in the woods, not a place that the container type should be a problem. "Well Marked" containers will still be blown up!

 

If she was too busy to read the cache page before adding her silly note, then it must be time to add another reviewer!

Link to comment

OT:

Roll this out worldwide and we can watch that number drop for the first time in ten years.

So long as folks with smart phones can still cram film cans under shrubbery every 529' along mundane roadways, 'that number' will do nothing but rise.

Where did that come from? Come on, are you really sinking that low? What about all the GPS owners who still cram film cans under shrubbery every 529' along mundane roadways? I suppose that will continue to happen and inflate the numbers.

/OT

Link to comment

Where did that come from?

Right over there... Nope. A bit further to the right... Yup! Right there! :lol:

 

Come on, are you really sinking that low?

How low? :unsure:

 

What about all the GPS owners who still cram film cans under shrubbery every 529' along mundane roadways?

What about them? It's the same problem.

Is there some point I'm missing? :unsure:

 

Back on topic, please. (Remember, this is all about ME!) :anibad:

Link to comment

Where did that come from?

Right over there... Nope. A bit further to the right... Yup! Right there! :lol:

 

Come on, are you really sinking that low?

How low? :unsure:

 

What about all the GPS owners who still cram film cans under shrubbery every 529' along mundane roadways?

What about them? It's the same problem.

Is there some point I'm missing? :unsure:

 

Back on topic, please. (Remember, this is all about ME!) :anibad:

 

Well if it's all about you, then I'll be clear. You are taking this way out of context. You seem to have an over inflated sense of self importance by thinking that because you've hidden X number of caches then you should be exempt from the reviewer trying to make things run smoothly. Take a look at it from their end. How many hiders are in their area with more than X number of hides? You want them to take more time out of their days as volunteers to make exceptions for you and everyone else who fits the bill? That's selfish. Very selfish. The questions aren't difficult. There's no reason to whine about it unless you're overly sensitive or have reason to not answer the questions. Either way, it's a case of the reviewer in question trying to make sure the game is played within the confines of the rules and your just being difficult. Stop it.

 

Edit for punk2ashun

Edited by J the Goat
Link to comment

Do I think it's too much for the reviewer to ask these questions?

 

NO.

 

Would I enjoy seeing this the next time I submit a cache?

 

NO.

 

Would I take it personally?

 

NO. (well, probably not ;) )

 

Would I understand that the reviewer somehow felt it was necessary to ask these questions?

 

YES

 

Would I take steps to preclude the necessity of such a 'questionnaire' from the reviewer?

 

YES.

 

In the last ten years there have been many changes on the Geocaching scene. Some of them I find enjoyable/helpful/useful, and others I wish never happened. Unfortunately (for me at least) I do not rule the world.

 

You must learn to bend like the willow, cachehopper...let the winds of change blow through, past, around, and over you. In this way you will remain standing when the storm is over.

 

Personally, I wouldn't mind if a cache hider was forced to scroll through every word of the guidelines and the relevant pages of the knowledge books every time a cache was sent up for approval, before they got to the final 'SUBMIT' button.

Link to comment

 

1. Last I knew (when I talked to the ranger) there was no formal permission needed in most state parks. When I asked, it was "Yes, we allow them". The reviewer should know that, AND I had posted that it was given anyway.

 

2. My hint told how and where the cache was hidden. That's 2 questions already answered.

 

3. This is miles in the woods, not a place that the container type should be a problem. "Well Marked" containers will still be blown up!

 

Would it have been that hard to put this in a reviewer note? It's a bit snarky, but it probably still answers the questions.

Link to comment

 

1. Last I knew (when I talked to the ranger) there was no formal permission needed in most state parks. When I asked, it was "Yes, we allow them". The reviewer should know that, AND I had posted that it was given anyway.

 

2. My hint told how and where the cache was hidden. That's 2 questions already answered.

 

3. This is miles in the woods, not a place that the container type should be a problem. "Well Marked" containers will still be blown up!

 

Would it have been that hard to put this in a reviewer note? It's a bit snarky, but it probably still answers the questions.

 

It was already there, for the most part, from how I read it.

 

And it wouldn't be hard, if one knew beforehand that it needed to be.

Link to comment

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.

 

I would think that would do the opposite. If I knew that my reviewer was going to send me an email asking for details about my hide even if I already include that information in a reviewer note they why should I bother to write a reviewer note. Why should I do things twice. I'll just skip making a reviewer note and wait for the email. I suppose my other would be replying to the email with a question of my own. "Do you even take the time read the reviewer notes? Apparently not if you sending me this email."

Link to comment

If I knew that my reviewer was going to send me an email asking for details about my hide even if I already include that information in a reviewer note they why should I bother to write a reviewer note. Why should I do things twice. I'll just skip making a reviewer note and wait for the email. I suppose my other would be replying to the email with a question of my own. "Do you even take the time read the reviewer notes? Apparently not if you sending me this email."

 

+1

Link to comment

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.

 

I would think that would do the opposite. If I knew that my reviewer was going to send me an email asking for details about my hide even if I already include that information in a reviewer note they why should I bother to write a reviewer note. Why should I do things twice. I'll just skip making a reviewer note and wait for the email. I suppose my other would be replying to the email with a question of my own. "Do you even take the time read the reviewer notes? Apparently not if you sending me this email."

 

I agree with you Glenn, but that probably won't win you any froggie points with the reviewer.

 

Perhaps we should all send a PM to our reviewers asking what should be done? :unsure:

Link to comment

Temporary caches can't be published, all caches should be in place for at least a year.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=301957&view=findpost&p=5123209

 

Hmmm. Maybe the OP doesn't know the guidelines quite as well as they thought.

 

The guideline: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#permanence

 

There is nothing wrong with what you have quoted. While the guidelines say that caches will not be published if hidden for less than 3 months, they really should be hidden for at least a year. 3 months is just a bare minimum.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

Temporary caches can't be published, all caches should be in place for at least a year.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=301957&view=findpost&p=5123209

 

Hmmm. Maybe the OP doesn't know the guidelines quite as well as they thought.

 

The guideline: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#permanence

 

Caches SHOULD be in place at least a year. They MUST be in place 3 months, unless something unforeseeable happens.

 

(OK, I messed up, I had been reading up on the Opencaching.com guidelines when I posted before)

Edited by Downy288
Link to comment

Temporary caches can't be published, all caches should be in place for at least a year.

 

http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5123209

 

Hmmm. Maybe the OP doesn't know the guidelines quite as well as they thought.

 

The guideline: http://www.geocachin...aspx#permanence

 

There is nothing wrong with what you have quoted. While the guidelines say that caches will not be published if hidden for less than 3 months, they really should be hidden for at least a year. 3 months is just a bare minimum.

 

Yeah, that.

Link to comment

Temporary caches can't be published, all caches should be in place for at least a year.

 

http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5123209

 

Hmmm. Maybe the OP doesn't know the guidelines quite as well as they thought.

 

The guideline: http://www.geocachin...aspx#permanence

 

Caches SHOULD be in place at least a year. They MUST be in place 3 months, unless something unforeseeable happens.

 

And that. :lol:

Link to comment

We overheard some cachers talking about this exact topic at the last event we were at. We were still fairly new at Geocaching and had not placed any caches yet so we did not know the whole process like we do now.

 

It was suggested by one cachers that the reviewer could be one of your local Geocachers who has another account and uses that extra cache placement information to find the cache much easier therefore increasing their chances of getting the FTF and raising their numbers faster. If that is the case, that is dirty playing.

 

With that being said, we did wonder about why we were asked what we affixed our last magnetic cache to when we placed the coords in the open grassy area a few feet away from some walls. We thought it was odd being asked that question after we had placed 3-4 others and not been asked for that specific of information.

Edited by PsjKids
Link to comment

We overheard some cachers talking about this exact topic at the last event we were at. We were still fairly new at Geocaching and had not placed any caches yet so we did not know the whole process like we do now.

 

It was suggested by one cachers that the reviewer could be one of your local Geocachers who has another account and uses that extra cache placement information to find the cache much easier therefore increasing their chances of getting the FTF and raising their numbers faster. If that is the case, that is dirty playing.

 

With that being said, we did wonder about why we were asked what we affixed our last magnetic cache to when we placed the coords in the open grassy area a few feet away from some walls. We thought it was odd being asked that question after we had placed 3-4 others and not been asked for that specific of information.

 

Your reviewer almost certainly is another local cacher, and they almost always do have another account. That much is all true. But they would not be using that information to help them find the cache. For one thing, geocaching is not a competitive sport in most minds. For another, they always have had access to the final coordinates for puzzles and multis, so having knowledge that the cache container is a peanut butter jars rather than an ammo can is not likely to give them much advantage, even if they were into a competitive aspect of caching. Your reivewers are reviewers because they have proven themselves to be reputable to your local caching community and to Groundspeak.

Link to comment

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.

 

I would think that would do the opposite. If I knew that my reviewer was going to send me an email asking for details about my hide even if I already include that information in a reviewer note they why should I bother to write a reviewer note. Why should I do things twice. I'll just skip making a reviewer note and wait for the email. I suppose my other would be replying to the email with a question of my own. "Do you even take the time read the reviewer notes? Apparently not if you sending me this email."

 

If the note to reviewer area is filled in with pertinent info, they should not be sending you an additional email.

 

This thread is about that area being left blank. Perhaps the reviewer is trying to create a pattern where permission and hide info is documented in the reviewer note section, even though they are aware of the state forestry compact geocaching policy.

Link to comment

We overheard some cachers talking about this exact topic at the last event we were at. We were still fairly new at Geocaching and had not placed any caches yet so we did not know the whole process like we do now.

 

It was suggested by one cachers that the reviewer could be one of your local Geocachers who has another account and uses that extra cache placement information to find the cache much easier therefore increasing their chances of getting the FTF and raising their numbers faster. If that is the case, that is dirty playing.

With that being said, we did wonder about why we were asked what we affixed our last magnetic cache to when we placed the coords in the open grassy area a few feet away from some walls. We thought it was odd being asked that question after we had placed 3-4 others and not been asked for that specific of information.

That's just uncalled for speculation. People who get picked to be a reviewer are well respected veterans of the community. They publish dozens to hundreds of caches weekly. I doubt any details stick in their brain. Could they pull up the reviewer note if they are hunting the cache, sure, but I expect most would not.

Link to comment

I'm a teacher at a virtual school. I have 200+ students. When I get an email with a simple question I have 2 options. Take a minute or two to go searching and look at their profile to see what their grades are, how often they come to class, how often they call for help, etc. Or send a 'boilerplate' response. I send a boilerplate for general questions becuase it is quicker and easier and that efficeincy allows me more time to deal with more pressing issues.

 

Your reviewer is trying to improve caching overall in the area by getting more info, they chose to send you a simple 3 questions (yes some of those questions may have already been answered). I'm sure your reviewer deals with lots of submissions and could have overlooked those answers (or maybe they saw them and just did not edit their boilerplate in the name of time management).

Link to comment

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.

 

I would think that would do the opposite. If I knew that my reviewer was going to send me an email asking for details about my hide even if I already include that information in a reviewer note they why should I bother to write a reviewer note. Why should I do things twice. I'll just skip making a reviewer note and wait for the email. I suppose my other would be replying to the email with a question of my own. "Do you even take the time read the reviewer notes? Apparently not if you sending me this email."

 

If the note to reviewer area is filled in with pertinent info, they should not be sending you an additional email.

 

This thread is about that area being left blank. Perhaps the reviewer is trying to create a pattern where permission and hide info is documented in the reviewer note section, even though they are aware of the state forestry compact geocaching policy.

 

The problem is that until this thread popped up on the horizon, no one knew that this had become pertinent information. I have never had to explicitly tell my reviewer that my cache is a small painted lock n' lock, hidden in a rock crevice with a small rock placed in front of it.

 

The only time I have ever filled in the Note to Reviewer box is when I hide a cache in our State Parks, and it simply states that I have read the web page with the park rules and that my cache complies with all of them.

 

Also, there seems to be some confusion here. The OP was not complaining that the reviewer had not read his note. He was complaining that the reviewer was asking for information that was already disclosed in the cache description and in the hint. I think the OP was indicating his belief that the reviewer didn't even look at the cache page before sending out their canned message.

Link to comment

I have never had to explicitly tell my reviewer that my cache is a small painted lock n' lock, hidden in a rock crevice with a small rock placed in front of it.

In addition, do I need to update that information when my cache is muggled, and I replace the lock 'n lock with a peanut butter jar? Or when another cacher comes along and tosses down a replacement film cannister when he believes the peanut butter jar went missing missing?

Link to comment

Why haven't we heard from TPTB if this is the wave of the future for all reviewers/hiders? They been awfully quiet on this.

Maybe because this isn't that big of a deal to them. Just answer the questions and move on with life. :rolleyes:

 

The problem I see is that not all of the reviewers are asking those questions (at least I didn't get them when I listed my last cache recently). Is this the new process? Or just one (or a few) reviewers'?

Link to comment

We complain about newbies not reading the guidelines and now you are complaining because the reviewers are asking questions. I say YEAH. About time! Some newbies say they didn't know when they did something wrong. Now maybe they won't have an excuse. We know experienced cachers know what they are doing, but it is only fair to let the reviewers do their job and respect it.

Link to comment

Temporary caches can't be published, all caches should be in place for at least a year.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=301957&view=findpost&p=5123209

 

Hmmm. Maybe the OP doesn't know the guidelines quite as well as they thought.

 

The guideline: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#permanence

 

Caches SHOULD be in place at least a year. They MUST be in place 3 months, unless something unforeseeable happens.

 

(OK, I messed up, I had been reading up on the Opencaching.com guidelines when I posted before)

 

If you're going to start using another website in protest over this situation, could I suggest any one but that one? :laughing: Yeah, it's 3 months, and I once posted a cache where I blatantly advertised I was going to archive it after 6 months, and it got published no problemo.

Link to comment

 

Also, there seems to be some confusion here. The OP was not complaining that the reviewer had not read his note. He was complaining that the reviewer was asking for information that was already disclosed in the cache description and in the hint. I think the OP was indicating his belief that the reviewer didn't even look at the cache page before sending out their canned message.

Just to keep on track... this is not accurate. The OP did not answer any of the three questions asked by the reviewer on his cache page. He is complaining because he has been in the game a long time and has placed a lot of caches. He does not think his cache placing skills should be questioned, and did not consider that there might be another reason for the questions. The next 100+ responses focused on speculation about why some reviewers might be asking standard questions that haven't been asked before, and whether these questions are unreasonable. A couple of cachers have said that if the boilerplate questions become standard, they will no longer litter their areas with micros. (That last statement might show a little bias, but I think this sums up the thread so far.)

Link to comment

 

Also, there seems to be some confusion here. The OP was not complaining that the reviewer had not read his note. He was complaining that the reviewer was asking for information that was already disclosed in the cache description and in the hint. I think the OP was indicating his belief that the reviewer didn't even look at the cache page before sending out their canned message.

Just to keep on track... this is not accurate. The OP did not answer any of the three questions asked by the reviewer on his cache page. He is complaining because he has been in the game a long time and has placed a lot of caches. He does not think his cache placing skills should be questioned, and did not consider that there might be another reason for the questions. The next 100+ responses focused on speculation about why some reviewers might be asking standard questions that haven't been asked before, and whether these questions are unreasonable. A couple of cachers have said that if the boilerplate questions become standard, they will no longer litter their areas with micros. (That last statement might show a little bias, but I think this sums up the thread so far.)

 

Looks like a pretty good summary to me...

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...