Reviewers asking for too much info?

[+GeoBain]

 

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...

 

A good summary would be, "Reading Comprehension Needed."

[+evilmonkey454]

Are you freakin kidding me!!!! It's three questions for crying out loud. Just imagine how much nature your missing by placing this tread.I don't see the problem. I'm sorry I am just repeating the comments of some of the cachers that get it. Your only being asked 3 questions can you even fathom how many question she must answer every time she reviews a cache on her volunteered time. Is it really worth all this. Well that enough I'm going for a hike.........

[Mr.Yuck]

Are you freakin kidding me!!!! It's three questions for crying out loud. Just imagine how much nature your missing by placing this tread.I don't see the problem. I'm sorry I am just repeating the comments of some of the cachers that get it. Your only being asked 3 questions can you even fathom how many question she must answer every time she reviews a cache on her volunteered time. Is it really worth all this. Well that enough I'm going for a hike.........

 

It's really not that bad, to induce an are you freaking kidding me, get a life and go outside type post. I'll admit that I'd feel somewhat insulted if I had boilerplate questions dropped on me after 9 years in the game. I suspect I'm not alone, although few will probably come out of the closet and post such thoughts.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Are you freakin kidding me!!!! It's three questions for crying out loud. Just imagine how much nature your missing by placing this tread.I don't see the problem. I'm sorry I am just repeating the comments of some of the cachers that get it. Your only being asked 3 questions can you even fathom how many question she must answer every time she reviews a cache on her volunteered time. Is it really worth all this. Well that enough I'm going for a hike.........

 

It's really not that bad, to induce an are you freaking kidding me, get a life and go outside type post. I'll admit that I'd feel somewhat insulted if I had boilerplate questions dropped on me after 9 years in the game. I suspect I'm not alone, although few will probably come out of the closet and post such thoughts.

 

I agree, but my reviewer and I have a great working relationship. If these types of questions become the norm, I hope my reviewer would let us know that, the first time we see them. After that, I would except that as the current process.

 

However, I am not sure these "bonus questions" are being asked by all reviewers across the board. In an earlier post, someone mentioned that there were issues of private property and permission issues in MA, hence the extra questions. What about the locations where the bomb squad has been called in? Are hiders in those states now getting asked the same questions?

[4wheelin_fool]

This thread is about that area being left blank.

 

No it's not. Reread the OP.

 

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.

 

I didn't read it real closely. That was just the standard boilerplate response I had prepared for the next dozen times this topic is posted.

[+SwineFlew]

Are you freakin kidding me!!!! It's three questions for crying out loud. Just imagine how much nature your missing by placing this tread.I don't see the problem. I'm sorry I am just repeating the comments of some of the cachers that get it. Your only being asked 3 questions can you even fathom how many question she must answer every time she reviews a cache on her volunteered time. Is it really worth all this. Well that enough I'm going for a hike.........

 

It's really not that bad, to induce an are you freaking kidding me, get a life and go outside type post. I'll admit that I'd feel somewhat insulted if I had boilerplate questions dropped on me after 9 years in the game. I suspect I'm not alone, although few will probably come out of the closet and post such thoughts.

I havent been playing the game long and yes, I will feel insulted as well because I read and check off two check off square that I agree to the guideline. (yes I speed read those) Its like tell a teacher asking you over and over if you read the book before writing a short story about it.

[+Lexmarks567]

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.

 

anyone who uses a smartphone or a Iphone etc for a GPS has a camera plus most all cellphones now have a built in camera.

[+Lexmarks567]

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."

 

It needs to be whats to stop someone from deciding Oh I know I'll place a catch inside a transformer and they have to reach in to retrieve it. The person gets fried and the family sues not only the person who placed the cache but the reviewer who published it and Groundspeak for negligent homicide saying they have reports from other caches who went after it that it was a sucide cache but they choose to do nothing cause they don't review on dangerous caches. Nevermind that the person who went after the cache should have known better then to mess around a transformer the issue would be nothing saying that you could be electrocuted retrieving the cache. That's the way it works in North America. example These kids got into the amtrak yard and climbed a boxcar and touched the overhead electrical wires. they survived but sued saying there were no signs warning them of the overhead wires. Nevermind they were trespassing they won cause there were no signs about the overhead wires.

[Clan Riffster]

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."

 

It needs to be... <rhetoric omitted for brevity>

If Groundspeak owned the caches, you might have a point.

If you ever come to Central Florida, please, I'm begging you, do not hunt for any of my caches. They are all way too dangerous for someone unable to assess a situation for themselves. I'll be happy to direct you to some quaint, but sterile park & grab nearby.

[+tozainamboku]

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."

 

It needs to be whats to stop someone from deciding Oh I know I'll place a catch inside a transformer and they have to reach in to retrieve it. The person gets fried and the family sues not only the person who placed the cache but the reviewer who published it and Groundspeak for negligent homicide saying they have reports from other caches who went after it that it was a sucide cache but they choose to do nothing cause they don't review on dangerous caches. Nevermind that the person who went after the cache should have known better then to mess around a transformer the issue would be nothing saying that you could be electrocuted retrieving the cache. That's the way it works in North America. example These kids got into the amtrak yard and climbed a boxcar and touched the overhead electrical wires. they survived but sued saying there were no signs warning them of the overhead wires. Nevermind they were trespassing they won cause there were no signs about the overhead wires.

Of course placing a cache inside transformer or in an amtrak yard where you would touch overhead electrical wires are already forbidden. That has to due with permission and trespassing guidelines. If you were to report a cache was in a dangerous location where the land owner or manager would be unlikely to give permission, my guess is that the reviewer would archive or at least disable the cache. The cache owner would need to show they had permission. One reason reviewers may want to make it a habit to ask questions is to discover such problems before the cache gets published. If someone had permission the cache would be published. However its not clear that all dangerous situations need explicit permission. There are clearly 5 star terrain caches that are dangerous, but they many be in an area where scuba diving or rock climbing are permitted.

 

It's certainly possible that the cache owner, the cache reviewer, and Groundspeak would all get sued if someone got hurt a cache. But that can happen even at a supposedly safe cache; and I suspect that the law would provide a pretty good defense. However, a property owner should know of the dangers and might more likely be held liable if they didn't post warnings and didn't make a reasonable attempt to limit access.

[+niraD]

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

It needs to be

No it doesn't. Many caches with 5-star terrain are quite dangerous without the skills/equipment necessary to navigate the terrain safely. And the description of 4-star terrain is "Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only" which indicates that such caches are dangerous for others to attempt.

 

As others have indicated, the examples you raised are already covered sufficiently by the requirement for adequate permission. DANGEROUS is not a guideline violation.

[Keystone]

Let's keep the discussion on topic - this is not an "unsafe caches" thread but rather a discussion of how reviewers ascertain compliance with the listing guidelines. Thanks.