Hints that are not hints - WHY REVIEWERS?

September 30, 2012

They really annoy the tar out of me. I think that a reviewer should stop this "NO HINTS" from being on the page. I know it does not happen as much these days with paperless caching, but to print it out and decode in the field just to find there is nothing there is not cool. I am still annoyed on click the hint button and these popping up. If you do not have a hint or none is needed then do not fill out the hint box. It should be assumed that if there is no hint listed there IS NO HINT.

Grumply,

Amish Hacker

7.9k · September 30, 2012

I hear ya!

SOMETIMES such a hint truly can be helpful if there is a chance you might be over-thinking the hide.

Rare cases, but possible.

I have seen a really long hint (probably as long as could be fit in there) telling me to be careful, bring extra water, look out for rattlers, etc, etc. All good information, but nothing that actually helped me find the cache! :lol:

As annoying as these 'useless, pointless' hints are, I really don't think we can or should expect the reviewers to concern themselves with them.

8.6k · September 30, 2012

I hear ya!

SOMETIMES such a hint truly can be helpful if there is a chance you might be over-thinking the hide.

Rare cases, but possible.

I have seen a really long hint (probably as long as could be fit in there) telling me to be careful, bring extra water, look out for rattlers, etc, etc. All good information, but nothing that actually helped me find the cache!

As annoying as these 'useless, pointless' hints are, I really don't think we can or should expect the reviewers to concern themselves with them.

Agreed.... not the reviewer's problem.

EDIT: deleted unnecessary

Edited September 30, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

21.9k · September 30, 2012

When Groundspeak in its wisdom adds a "no useless hints" clause as part of the listing guidelines, I will enforce it. Until then, I am not permitted to hold up publication over this issue. I do, however, post the following advisory warning:

Hello,

Your cache will be published momentarily, but before doing so I wanted to write and encourage you to reconsider the encrypted hint section of your cache page. Your hint did not seem like it would be useful to someone decoding it in the field. From the instructions for hiding a cache:

"Enter any hints or spoiler information below. This information will be encrypted on the site until a geocacher clicks on a link to unencrypt it, or decodes it on the trail. Text within brackets [like this] will not be encrypted. Please keep your hints short, so decoding it on the trail is easier. If you don't have a hint, leave it blank."

Thank you for considering this request. Enjoy the logs on your new cache!

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

September 30, 2012

I hear ya!

SOMETIMES such a hint truly can be helpful if there is a chance you might be over-thinking the hide.

Rare cases, but possible.

I have seen a really long hint (probably as long as could be fit in there) telling me to be careful, bring extra water, look out for rattlers, etc, etc. All good information, but nothing that actually helped me find the cache!

As annoying as these 'useless, pointless' hints are, I really don't think we can or should expect the reviewers to concern themselves with them.

Agreed.... not the reviewer's problem.

EDIT: deleted unnecessary

To quote Office Space.....

The reviewers should hold up the integrity of listings. I agree that cachers should be better informed and should make better choices in how they post their listings, but that is what the reviewer is there for. I also think that "It's next to the building under a log 3 feet from the door on the right" is not a hint, but I am not going that far. If anything, Groundspeak HQ should note on the submit page that if you do not have a hint do not place anything in this box.

8.6k · September 30, 2012

I hear ya!

SOMETIMES such a hint truly can be helpful if there is a chance you might be over-thinking the hide.

Rare cases, but possible.

I have seen a really long hint (probably as long as could be fit in there) telling me to be careful, bring extra water, look out for rattlers, etc, etc. All good information, but nothing that actually helped me find the cache!

As annoying as these 'useless, pointless' hints are, I really don't think we can or should expect the reviewers to concern themselves with them.

Agreed.... not the reviewer's problem.

EDIT: deleted unnecessary

The reviewers should hold up the integrity of listings. I agree that cachers should be better informed and should make better choices in how they post their listings, but that is what the reviewer is there for. I also think that "It's next to the building under a log 3 feet from the door on the right" is not a hint, but I am not going that far. If anything, Groundspeak HQ should note on the submit page that if you do not have a hint do not place anything in this box.

I hear you barkin' up a tree.... but you should know.... the squirrel isn't there anymore!

It's not the reviewers job! If you have a problem with a hint, maybe you should ask the CO to correct same -- although I wouldn't really recommend it.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

September 30, 2012

When Groundspeak in its wisdom adds a "no useless hints" clause as part of the listing guidelines, I will enforce it. Until then, I am not permitted to hold up publication over this issue. I do, however, post the following advisory warning:

Hello,

Your cache will be published momentarily, but before doing so I wanted to write and encourage you to reconsider the encrypted hint section of your cache page. Your hint did not seem like it would be useful to someone decoding it in the field. From the instructions for hiding a cache:

"Enter any hints or spoiler information below. This information will be encrypted on the site until a geocacher clicks on a link to unencrypt it, or decodes it on the trail. Text within brackets [like this] will not be encrypted. Please keep your hints short, so decoding it on the trail is easier. If you don't have a hint, leave it blank."

Thank you for considering this request. Enjoy the logs on your new cache!

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

KEYSTONE!!!

It's good to see you again. I like the information you are giving cachers. I know you all follow the guidelines... so I think you are doing the best thing for now. I hope this dialogue will get people thinking before posting pointless "hints"

2.2k · September 30, 2012

And then there's the encrypted "hint" that shoulda been on the cache page.

"Don't pull off the road, the mud is really deep and you can't see it." :blink:

8.6k · September 30, 2012

And then there's the encrypted "hint" that shoulda been on the cache page.

"Don't pull off the road, the mud is really deep and you can't see it."

Of course you can't see it (the mud), you are busy reading the hint on your GPSr as you are parking!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

3.6k · September 30, 2012

I found a cache and the hint said "Oh, really?" and its DEAD on! :unsure:

Heres the Cache

11.6k · September 30, 2012

It's not the reviewers job! If you have a problem with a hint, maybe you should ask the CO to correct same -- although I wouldn't really recommend it.

+1

For a hintless hint, I sometimes add "Hint's no help" to my DNF. If it's kind of a problem, check the hints before you go.

7.8k · September 30, 2012

If anything, Groundspeak HQ should note on the submit page that if you do not have a hint do not place anything in this box.

I'll point out that the new submission form almost does this. When you get to the hint section, you're presented with the question "Include a hint?", with the radio buttons "Yes" and "No". By default, "No" is selected and the hint field isn't displayed. If you change it to "Yes", you're then given the field where you can enter your hint.

I think the reason you see many of those useless hints is because hiders were presented with a hint field on the old form, and they thought they had to put something there. For this reason, I think the way the new form does it should prevent a lot of these useless hints.

8.9k · September 30, 2012

Hmmm... just went through the cache publication wizard. There USED to be something by the hint box that said something like "make the hint useful" - but now all I saw was a link "More about hints"

If you EDIT the cache there is this underneath the box:

Enter any hints or spoiler information above. This information will be encrypted on the site until a geocacher clicks on a link to unencrypt it, or decodes on the trail. Text within brackets [like this] will not be encrypted. Please keep your hints short, so decoding it on the trail is easier. If you don't have a hint, leave it blank.

Color added by me.

I'd agree with something in the wizard that says this more predominantly, and something on the edit cache page that doesn't have this as an afterthought.

However, I've learned through years of programming our system at work that you can program out stupidity, and you can't legislate out stupidity. Best way to stop the insanity is to call people (nicely) on it - pointing out the uselessness of the hint. Post in your log something like "Great cache - thanks for placing. Too bad the hint isn't more helpful. When I got stumped finding this on the trail I was hoping for something more helpful than 'No hint needed'. You might want to consider either changing it something more meaningful, or just removing that hint."

But why place the blame with reviewers when (as Keystone pointed out) they have no say in encrypted hints. I personally think that nanos, under the skirt in a parking lot owned by any big-box store, where the cache obviously wasn't placed with permission of the store, are the silliest thing to ever come to Geocaching (my opinion only). But if there was a reviewer that shared my opinion, they wouldn't be able to prevent these caches from being published.

Place the blame on the people that can do something about it: cache owners.

1.6k · September 30, 2012

Stop looking at the hints = problem solved

9.2k · September 30, 2012

Stop looking at the hints = problem solved

I rarely use the hint.

But.

If I find the cache on the floor in the open, and I know it shouldn't be there... Where do I return it to? :blink: In this case a decent hint helps.

10.2k · September 30, 2012

When Groundspeak in its wisdom adds a "no useless hints" clause as part of the listing guidelines, I will enforce it. Until then, I am not permitted to hold up publication over this issue. I do, however, post the following advisory warning:

Hello,

Your cache will be published momentarily, but before doing so I wanted to write and encourage you to reconsider the encrypted hint section of your cache page. Your hint did not seem like it would be useful to someone decoding it in the field. From the instructions for hiding a cache:

"Enter any hints or spoiler information below. This information will be encrypted on the site until a geocacher clicks on a link to unencrypt it, or decodes it on the trail. Text within brackets [like this] will not be encrypted. Please keep your hints short, so decoding it on the trail is easier. If you don't have a hint, leave it blank."

Thank you for considering this request. Enjoy the logs on your new cache!

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Could this be implemented system-wide? I did not know you did that, but I know of an Ontario Reviewer who always does that. (From what he's told me). The frequency of ABAR hints in my particular region tells me my reviewer doesn't do that. ABAR decrypts to "none" by the way, and boy am I in trouble with the local reviewer now. :laughing:

Cue the posts from people who always chime in saying "none" and "too easy for hints" worthless hints are not worthless, because they tell the seeker they're "overthinking it". Phooey, I say, "none" and "too easy for hints" are posted by people who can't follow the simple instructions on the hint field "if you don't have a hint, leave it blank". :blink:

3.6k · September 30, 2012

I put really good hints on my easy caches because if they are missing, I will know for sure. It does save me a trip to check on the cache. I feel that no cache is too easy for a hint because if the cache is missing, people will tear up the area, I see that happen far too often!! Plus, it keeps my finders happy. Happy finders means better networking with my customers.

September 30, 2012

For all of you who think this is something a Volunteer reviewer should correct, i'm sure they can and will do a lot of extra work if you want to pay them $25-$30 per hour plus benefits. I don't, i think they do a great job (and cheap too). I have no idea what a premium membership would cost but it wouldn't be cheap.

10.2k · September 30, 2012

If anything, Groundspeak HQ should note on the submit page that if you do not have a hint do not place anything in this box.

I'll point out that the new submission form almost does this. When you get to the hint section, you're presented with the question "Include a hint?", with the radio buttons "Yes" and "No". By default, "No" is selected and the hint field isn't displayed. If you change it to "Yes", you're then given the field where you can enter your hint.

I think the reason you see many of those useless hints is because hiders were presented with a hint field on the old form, and they thought they had to put something there. For this reason, I think the way the new form does it should prevent a lot of these useless hints.

That might actually work. Don't ask me, I haven't placed a cache since March, 2012. I am placing one probably next week, I will check that out on the new form. I haven't made up the cache page yet, but I emailed the reviewer with some initial questions (it's on private property with permission) and he/she responded with a 15 question boilerplate questionnaire. But I have a funny feeling he/she just noticed a recent thread, and was trying to be funny. :huh:

1.1k · September 30, 2012

Really don't see it as a big problem in the field. It takes only a second to see the hint is useless. If that is a chunk of GC time, you need to step up the D ratings on your finds.

6k · September 30, 2012

Even if the reviewers enforced a hint rule (which I don't think they should) it would be very subjective. What happens when the CO puts in one that isn't kosher afterwards. Do you submit a NA log because it violates guidelines. Reviewers already have much to already without this somewhat trivial issue.

October 1, 2012

and he/she responded with a 15 question boilerplate questionnaire. But I have a funny feeling he/she just noticed a recent thread, and was trying to be funny.

I thought it was funny. As long as I'm amusing myself that's all that really matters.

19k · October 1, 2012

Stop looking at the hints = problem solved

Stop looking for caches = problem solved even more completely.

2.5k · October 1, 2012

You forgot one. From a a DNF log of mine long before I went paperless:

A constant stream of people going by after driving around the block 3 times looking for parking had me aggravated to start, but after decoding the hint to read "Bring a pen or pencil with you" I gave up. Unless people are caching paperless, how do you think they're decrypting the hint?!?

8k · October 1, 2012

I think I'm going to make a sign that says "No hint". I am going to put it somewhere and hide a cache on it. If I can't get the cache published because I wrote "No hint" for the hint, I will be very unhappy.

8.6k · October 1, 2012

...more completely.

???????????More completely??????????

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You are beginnin' to sound like me, KC.

2k · October 1, 2012

For all of you who think this is something a Volunteer reviewer should correct, i'm sure they can and will do a lot of extra work if you want to pay them $25-$30 per hour plus benefits. I don't, i think they do a great job (and cheap too). I have no idea what a premium membership would cost but it wouldn't be cheap.

Why would you pay them $25 to $30 per hour plus benefits. I'm sure it could be outsourced to India for a fraction of that.

2.5k · October 1, 2012

For all of you who think this is something a Volunteer reviewer should correct, i'm sure they can and will do a lot of extra work if you want to pay them $25-$30 per hour plus benefits. I don't, i think they do a great job (and cheap too). I have no idea what a premium membership would cost but it wouldn't be cheap.
Why would you pay them $25 to $30 per hour plus benefits. I'm sure it could be outsourced to India for a fraction of that.

I can see it now:

Hello,

Your cache will be published in a short momentarily, but before doing this so I wanted to write and enrage you to reconsider again the encrypted hint section of your cache page. You hint didn't not seem like it would be of usefulness to someone recoding it in the field. Form the instructions for hidening a cache:

"Enter any hints or spoiler information below. This information will be encrypted on the site until a geocacher clicks on a link to unencrypt it, or decodes it on the trail. Text within brackets [like this] will not be encrypted. Please keep your hints short, so decoding it on the trail is easier. If you don't have a hint, leave it blank."

Thank you for consider this request. Thank you for doing the needful!!

प्रधानसिद्धांत

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

2.8k · October 1, 2012

But why place the blame with reviewers when (as Keystone pointed out) they have no say in encrypted hints. I personally think that nanos, under the skirt in a parking lot owned by any big-box store, where the cache obviously wasn't placed with permission of the store, are the silliest thing to ever come to Geocaching (my opinion only). But if there was a reviewer that shared my opinion, they wouldn't be able to prevent these caches from being published.

In another recent thread, it sounded like a reviewer is having some success in doing just this.

October 1, 2012

Because Reviewers don't have time to see if the hint given is useful to the cache or not. There volunteering there time so don't complain please

19k · October 1, 2012

For all of you who think this is something a Volunteer reviewer should correct, i'm sure they can and will do a lot of extra work if you want to pay them $25-$30 per hour plus benefits. I don't, i think they do a great job (and cheap too). I have no idea what a premium membership would cost but it wouldn't be cheap.
Why would you pay them $25 to $30 per hour plus benefits. I'm sure it could be outsourced to India for a fraction of that.
I can see it now:
Hello,

Your cache will be published in a short momentarily, but before doing this so I wanted to write and enrage you to reconsider again the encrypted hint section of your cache page. You hint didn't not seem like it would be of usefulness to someone recoding it in the field. Form the instructions for hidening a cache:

"Enter any hints or spoiler information below. This information will be encrypted on the site until a geocacher clicks on a link to unencrypt it, or decodes it on the trail. Text within brackets [like this] will not be encrypted. Please keep your hints short, so decoding it on the trail is easier. If you don't have a hint, leave it blank."

Thank you for consider this request. Thank you for doing the needful!!

प्रधानसिद्धांत

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

ROFL!!!

October 1, 2012

For all of you who think this is something a Volunteer reviewer should correct, i'm sure they can and will do a lot of extra work if you want to pay them $25-$30 per hour plus benefits. I don't, i think they do a great job (and cheap too). I have no idea what a premium membership would cost but it wouldn't be cheap.
Why would you pay them $25 to $30 per hour plus benefits. I'm sure it could be outsourced to India for a fraction of that.
I can see it now:
Hello,

Your cache will be published in a short momentarily, but before doing this so I wanted to write and enrage you to reconsider again the encrypted hint section of your cache page. You hint didn't not seem like it would be of usefulness to someone recoding it in the field. Form the instructions for hidening a cache:

"Enter any hints or spoiler information below. This information will be encrypted on the site until a geocacher clicks on a link to unencrypt it, or decodes it on the trail. Text within brackets [like this] will not be encrypted. Please keep your hints short, so decoding it on the trail is easier. If you don't have a hint, leave it blank."

Thank you for consider this request. Thank you for doing the needful!!

प्रधानसिद्धांत

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Brilliant-thank you for that. I have just added it to my menu of boilerplate messages and will be sending you a 10 rupee royalty check for each and every time that I use it.

समीक्षक स्वयंसेवक

Edited October 1, 2012 by NCreviewer

3.7k · October 1, 2012

Here I was thinking that everybody did paperless caching nowadays? :unsure: May have to rethink some of my looooonger hints if this is not the case.

If you're not using paperless caching, can you not decrypt the hint on geocaching.com before you go out?

3.6k · October 1, 2012

Here I was thinking that everybody did paperless caching nowadays? May have to rethink some of my looooonger hints if this is not the case.

If you're not using paperless caching, can you not decrypt the hint on geocaching.com before you go out?

I know my ex gf is still printing the paper out and decrypt it by hand. LOL. Whatever float her boat. :laughing:

The first 30 caches I found was decrypted by hand because I was brainwashed that decrypting the clue by long hand was the sprint of geocaching!! Never again! <_<

Edited October 1, 2012 by SwineFlew

October 1, 2012

Fully agree with OP. Hints should be hints.

8.3k · October 1, 2012

For all of you who think this is something a Volunteer reviewer should correct, i'm sure they can and will do a lot of extra work if you want to pay them $25-$30 per hour plus benefits. I don't, i think they do a great job (and cheap too). I have no idea what a premium membership would cost but it wouldn't be cheap.
Why would you pay them $25 to $30 per hour plus benefits. I'm sure it could be outsourced to India for a fraction of that.
I can see it now:
Hello,

Your cache will be published in a short momentarily, but before doing this so I wanted to write and enrage you to reconsider again the encrypted hint section of your cache page. You hint didn't not seem like it would be of usefulness to someone recoding it in the field. Form the instructions for hidening a cache:

"Enter any hints or spoiler information below. This information will be encrypted on the site until a geocacher clicks on a link to unencrypt it, or decodes it on the trail. Text within brackets [like this] will not be encrypted. Please keep your hints short, so decoding it on the trail is easier. If you don't have a hint, leave it blank."

Thank you for consider this request. Thank you for doing the needful!!

प्रधानसिद्धांत

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

You forgot

Please do the needful.

7.8k · October 1, 2012

Here I was thinking that everybody did paperless caching nowadays?

I could see some diehard puritans ( :mmraspberry: ) still doing it old-school.

1k · October 1, 2012

I always decrypt the hint before printing the listing so the decrypted hint is printed on the listing. On the rare occasion the hint is actually useful that's just a bonus.

October 1, 2012

For all of you who think this is something a Volunteer reviewer should correct, i'm sure they can and will do a lot of extra work if you want to pay them $25-$30 per hour plus benefits. I don't, i think they do a great job (and cheap too). I have no idea what a premium membership would cost but it wouldn't be cheap.
Why would you pay them $25 to $30 per hour plus benefits. I'm sure it could be outsourced to India for a fraction of that.
I can see it now:
Hello,

Your cache will be published in a short momentarily, but before doing this so I wanted to write and enrage you to reconsider again the encrypted hint section of your cache page. You hint didn't not seem like it would be of usefulness to someone recoding it in the field. Form the instructions for hidening a cache:

"Enter any hints or spoiler information below. This information will be encrypted on the site until a geocacher clicks on a link to unencrypt it, or decodes it on the trail. Text within brackets [like this] will not be encrypted. Please keep your hints short, so decoding it on the trail is easier. If you don't have a hint, leave it blank."

Thank you for consider this request. Thank you for doing the needful!!

प्रधानसिद्धांत

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Brilliant-thank you for that. I have just added it to my menu of boilerplate messages and will be sending you a 10 rupee royalty check for each and every time that I use it.

समीक्षक स्वयंसेवक

+1 Thanks for that Probably my 3rd or 4th used template letter in my stockpile. Now if people will just read it :unsure:

2.4k · October 1, 2012

In the beginning, decrypting the clue was fun. Then, when it was no help...not so much. I would decrypt the clue before printing, but now I'm paperless which is good as the clue (or not) is decoded for me.

I do agree that if the "hint" is along the "none needed" lines, why bother putting that in? What was worse was getting the "not really necessary" backwards!!!

15.3k · October 1, 2012

Here I was thinking that everybody did paperless caching nowadays?

For my normal geocaching, I'm paperless. But when I'm leading a geocaching hike with newcomers, then I print out the cache descriptions. It's just so much easier to hand newcomers several sheets of paper than to explain yet another electronic device. Switching the target waypoint from the geocache they just found to the next geocache down the trail is enough of a challenge for most of them.

2.4k · October 1, 2012

They're reviewers, not cache police.

If they start making "suggestions" about how the listing is worded, where will it end?

Soon they can just give you the wording to use and everyone will yell about too many rules on how you write the cache page.

Just take a deep breath and go find some caches for a while to mellow out. But just don't read the hints.

3.6k · October 1, 2012

We got a few caches around here where the hint is in another language. Not nice in my opinion.

2.7k · October 1, 2012

I totally disagree. Poor hints can tell a LOT about the hide. If I'm having trouble finding the cache and decode the hint only to see NO HINT NEEDED or ITS TO EASY FOR A HINT then I stop my search immediately. It's either a really easy cache that's gone missing or it's a poor hide. Either way it's getting a DNF and doesn't deserve anymore of my time. It is also a good way to screen out questionable caches in an area that you are unfamiliar with.

1.1k · October 1, 2012

I found a cache the other day..

hint was just RED

nothing else..

so I think, here is NOTHING red at all, just green trees,

After searching the area really good I gave up,

called another finder who said:

RED is the color of the CACHE,

Hints like this DONT HELP AT ALL !!!

it is better to give HELPFUL hints about where is the hide -

so we can find that spot, and go into deep seacrh mode at that very correct location..

the HINT function is designed to add the missing accuracy of a GPS in many locations,

do not think as a hider or seeker a GPS position is EXTREAMLY accurate and stable all the time.

1.1k · October 1, 2012

>We got a few caches around here where the hint is in another language. Not nice in my opinion.

This is EXACTLY what drives me nuts when I travel !!!

that very important word, that just make IMPOSSIBLE to find into dead easy for the locals,

WHY cant a CO make that one word, or one liner in ENGLISH too ???

they do know how to use the webbage and that is in English,

and google they can use to translate and put that line into their cache page..

Seekers, can not go online while they travel !!

there is no way to auto translate PQ files, YET ?!?!?

so what I do, is to stop locals and ask them what the hint means until I either reveal the cache location

to halve the city, or find the darn thing using their help,

and this I explain in my find it log.

3.7k · October 1, 2012

>We got a few caches around here where the hint is in another language. Not nice in my opinion.

This is EXACTLY what drives me nuts when I travel !!!

WHY cant a CO make that one word, or one liner in ENGLISH too ???

I don't think this is what SwineFlew is referring to. What you are referring to already was discussed in a thread. The conclusion, from what I remember, is that if all cache owners should be required to have English on their cache page, they should also be required to have Mandarin, German, French and Portugese. Just in case, you know, it's not just us English-speaking folks that travel.

1.5k · October 1, 2012

As soon as Groundspeak adds a field to the form where the cache owner explains the hint to the reviewer, I'll be happy to enforce a "useful" requirement.

I wrote the additional hints article - which has since been edited by others ,Jenn Seva most usefully, my original version was nearly as grumpy as the first post in this thread ;-). This is a topic dear to my heart - but there's no mandate to not publish over hints.

Like Keystone, and most other reviewers, I have an advisory note about the apparently useless hint. Thanks to प्रधानसिद्धांत, I have a new one. Very cool too.

I sometimes wait 24 hours after posting my advisory note to publish, - but if the hint remains idiotic I still publish, per instructions.

The new form seems to have cut down on these - remarkably. New cache owners may actually be seeing the article and taking it to heart.

I've had some people say that "too easy for a hint" is a hint. I guess..... =:-)

10.2k · October 1, 2012

They're reviewers, not cache police.

If they start making "suggestions" about how the listing is worded, where will it end?

Soon they can just give you the wording to use and everyone will yell about too many rules on how you write the cache page.

Just take a deep breath and go find some caches for a while to mellow out. But just don't read the hints.

You did see the part where Keystone, Nomex, and and CacheDrone, whom I didn't originally name, but will now, already make "suggestions", right?

1.1k · October 1, 2012

>Just in case, you know, it's not just us English-speaking folks that travel.

you are mixing up things..

all people who travel can read a bit English.

AND the Groundspeak webpage is offcourse written in English ONLY

this way most people can understand most of it, worldwide,

and so should cache pages too :-)

at least if a CO care to make most people understand it,

with as little as possible work.

Hints that are not hints - WHY REVIEWERS?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment