Why were these caches ever approved?

1.1k · October 20, 2012

GC3TJBN and GC3TJAK

These were college class assignments. The only way anyone could log these caches was to take the classes. Appears the approver was asleep at the wheel when he approved these.

1.4k · October 20, 2012

It seems obvious the CO hadn't read the rules before posting. Or worse yet, read them and didn't understand them.(after all the CO is a teacher!)

The reviewers get busy, and occasionally one will slip by. That's when you use a NA.

you are right these should never have been published. :blink:

1.1k · October 20, 2012

I'd say the CO knew exactly what he was doing and the reviewer as well.

3.6k · October 20, 2012

Did the CO changed things around after the reviewer published it?

22k · October 20, 2012

1. Caches are not "approved," they are "published" if they meet the listing guidelines. Reviewers publish many caches that they do not approve of, because they meet the listing guidelines.

2. These caches met the listing guidelines at the time of publication. Community colleges are not covered under the "Schools are off limits" guideline, which addresses caches near elementary and secondary schools. There was no suggestion on the cache page or in the archived logs that the caches would be temporary and/or restricted in availability to class participants only.

3. In hindsight the caches clearly do not meet the listing guidelines for "Cache Permanence" and availability to all geocachers. Since both listings are now archived, I'm sure the local reviewer considers the matter resolved.

1.1k · October 20, 2012

Now that that's settled...seems to me that the CO could have designed this cache to satisfy the guidelines and also her/his class assignment...shame.

22k · October 20, 2012

Agreed... there are countless examples of properly constructed geocache projects for school groups, scout troops, etc. The caches in this thread are not among them.

Anyone interested in this type of project could benefit from reading and posting in the Education sections of the Forums.

1.1k · October 21, 2012

Call it "published" or "approved". You're whistling symantics. If the reviewer doesn't think the cache meets the guidelines then the cache isn't approved and doesn't get published. "Approved" doesn't mean the review has to like it, just that if the cache meets the guidelines.

I've been watching them since they were "published" (there, feel better?). Nothing has changed on the cache pages. Just the way they're worded should have raised a red flag with the reviewer. They raised a red flag with several of us in the area when they came out.

Some reviewers are better than others. Some read and understand better than others.

8.3k · October 21, 2012

No, I don't think it is semantics. I'm sure there are reviewers that do not approve of LPC's, guardrail caches and power trails. But they still publish them. Also note that the first log is generally the publish log, not the approve log. There is a world of difference between approve and publish.

3.6k · October 21, 2012

Not really, A reviewer published my cache because the cache is approved by the guideline.

2.4k · October 21, 2012

The guideline can't approve anything. The guidelines can't think.

The reviewer can publish a cache. They often publish caches they don't approve of, such as lamp post caches where you can put a regular nearby. They publish caches when they follow the guidelines.

Sometimes reviewers do make mistakes. They are humans, and volunteers at that. And people sometimes change cache pages after publication.

It's good to point out errors or changes, yet useless in the case of archived caches.

3.1k · October 21, 2012

"Approved" is rather vague and can legitimately be interpreted in different ways. Some people might view it simply as approved for publication. Others might see it as having additional connotations of approval of the cache itself. So I can see why reviewers prefer the word "published" to avoid the possible confusion.

6.5k · October 21, 2012

Fixed it for ya.

19k · October 21, 2012

I do think that it is semantics, but that real-life experience necessitated making the distinction when people started complaining that they thought their cache didn't get published because the "approver" (which they used to be known as) didn't like their cache. Changing the title to "reviewer" and the action to "publish" distanced them from those accusations somewhat. But the fact remains that not all submitted caches get published after the reviewing process, and that quite clearly (to me) is called approval.

October 21, 2012

Most of the time reading the forums, it reminds me of lawyers and Ex-Presidents arguing over the meaning of the word "is". :lol:

3.6k · October 21, 2012

They should change it to publisher.

14k · October 21, 2012

Yes, there may be a semantic interpretation here, but only if you're trying to argue that a reviewers job is to approve cache. My interpretation is that the reviewer isn't *approving* the listing (or the cache) but is just reviewing the listing to make a determination regarding its compliance with the requirements/guidelines.

Because there *is* a semantic interpretation of "approval" it's best that the term just isn't used. If it is used, some are going to interpret that to mean that the reviewer is making a determination on whether or not to publish a caches based on their subjective opinion on the quality of the cache.

Even though reviewers do not consider the quality of the cache when making a determination regarding whether or not a listing will be published there are obviously a fair number of geocachers which don't understand this. Consider all threads that are started by those that have discovered that their great idea for a new cache isn't published due to proximity issues with a film can tossed in a bush. There still seems to be a somewhat common belief that because their cache is "better" that a proximity allowance should be made because there is a cache that is too close but is just a micro stuck in a bush.

7.9k · October 21, 2012

The reviewer may not approve of the cache, but they published it.

Groundspeak may not approve of the cache, but they listed it.

It is, IMNSHO, a semantics issue that could have legal implications for both Groundspeak and the reviewer if someone decided to sue over damages or injuries received through Geocaching.

8k · October 21, 2012

Guidelines are subject to interpretation. But also cache descriptions may also be subject to interpretation. While the write up for these caches makes it clear that they were placed for a class assignment it isn't as clear that the caches are only going to be available for a temporary period or that non-students might not be able to log the caches.

Reviewers have a lot of caches to review. Most caches have no apparent problems and the reviewer can simple click "Published". When a cache appears to have a problem, the reviewer must contact the the cache owner and and discuss the issue. There may not be any issue with the cache, or it might require a very simple change to bring it into compliance with the guidelines. I'm not sure, but perhaps reviewers have the option to provisionally publish a cache. The cache appears to meet guidelines but something is a little fishy. So the reviewer publishes the cache and adds it to their watch list. They may be able to tell from the logs whether or not the cache meets guidelines and can disable it as soon as a problem becomes apparent.

There is little evidence here that a reviewer published a cache that they knew to be in violation of guidelines. I don't think any system would catch every problem. You could have all reviewers send a form email asking twenty questions about the cache that have to answered, but this is likely going to slow down publication and result in far more work for the reviewer and we will still have people posting "How did this cache get published?"

19k · October 21, 2012

I can take plans for remodelling my kitchen into the local building inspector and get him to approve them for a permit. That doesn't mean that he wants a kitchen just like mine.

1.1k · October 22, 2012

Wise words for a pup...Benji Buttons?

5.6k · October 22, 2012

But it is semantics. "Approve" has two definitions: 1. to have or express a favorable opinion of 2. to accept as satisfactory. So judging a cache against the guidelines is 'approving' or 'not approving' the cache - i.e.. does it satisfy the guidelines. So "okaying for publication" or "approving for publication" has the same meaning - whether or not you like the cache.

6.1k · October 22, 2012

They stopped using the term "approved", because it was being interpreted too broadly, as the "approval" was more narrow. Approving a cache for listed publication is different than personally approving of the hide and placement, which some interpreted as constituting endorsement.

14k · October 22, 2012

Exactly. "Approve" is ambiguous, so as long as some insist on continuing to use the term to describe what reviewers do that result in a cache being published (or not) it's going to lead to confusion.

20.7k · October 23, 2012

What did the reviewer tell you when you questioned the listing?

3.1k · October 23, 2012

I wonder how many times the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture has been sued because some people don't like the taste of beef brisket despite the department's stamp of approval.

7.9k · October 24, 2012

'Not liking the taste' is somewhat different than being poisoned by toxins or infested with parasites.

If you didn't like the brisket, try the pork chops instead. :lol:

And in contrast, the USDA does have field inspectors to (supposedly) insure the food meets minimum standards.

In Geocaching, you and I are the field inspectors.

3.1k · October 24, 2012

The point is that USDA approval only signifies that the inspectors believe the meat complies with government guidelines. It doesn't necessarily signify that the inspectors approve of the taste of that cut of meat. "Approve" can mean different things.

Similarly, it's possible for a Volunteer Reviewer's "approval" to simply mean they believe the cache complies with Groundspeak guidelines. It doesn't necessarily signify that the reviewer approves of the quality of that cache.

Since "approve" can mean different things, though, I can see why reviewers prefer to say that they "publish" cache listings rather than "approve" cache listings.

October 24, 2012

People are very unlikely to sue the USDA because the meat tastes bad, or sue Knowschad because his kitchen cabinets are ugly. There is a much higher chance that Groundspeak would get sued by some business owners that are forced to shut down for a day due to a bomb scare. I'm sure Groundspeak has hired lawyers to go over the wording on the site to minimize the possibility that a lawsuit could be successful, and the small differences between words like "publish" and "approve" could make a difference in the outcome.

5.8k · October 24, 2012

As a federal attorney who has handled tort claims filed against the United States, I can say that people are pretty unlikely to sue the USDA in the first place, because it's protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act. So maybe we can drop the false analogy.

The caches didn't comply with the guidelines and were published. It happens from time to time, and yet the seas have not run red with blood. The two in question are now archived, and the world is now safe from their tyranny.

As for the OP, well, this is one way to call things to your reviewer's attention, but I'd have to say that calling Reviewer Jones out on the carpet here in the main forum wouldn't be my preferred technique. Have fun getting your next cache published.

edit to add: as far as what the preferred technique would have been, I'd say your NA log would have sufficed. Don't really see the point of calling out your reviewer two days after these caches were archived, but whatever.

edited again to finish my thought in the first sentence - derp.

Edited October 24, 2012 by hzoi

October 24, 2012

I feel the same way. What was the point of this thread? What was OP trying to accomplish?

Just as a side note, I live near this area, and share the same reviewer. He is excellent at what he does. He is extremely busy, as he is one of only two reviewers for the entire state of Illinois. Reviewer Jones does the publishing for most of the caches in this state, I don't know about you, but I get a couple emails daily in just the areas I have on watch for newly published caches. That's just my area! Imagine how many a day he does for the whole state!

I am honestly disappointed with the lack of respect to your local reviewer, OP. It is sad to see this. Besides, you got the response you wanted: cache is now archived. Was that not good enough? Was it really necessary to come here and vent? Please, please be more respectful of your local reviewer, and the other on the forum who moderate as well (Keystone). These poeple put in countless hours of labor free of charge. what do they get back in return? Think about that next time.

5k · October 24, 2012

I haven't really chimed in on this but I got the same feeling from the first post. It sounded like one of the awful local political ads that I can't seem to escape.

Things slip by. Three people tried to put a cache within 200' of my friends multi waypoint and all were denied. A fourth person got one published. It happens. One of our reviewers who I know will not publish a commercial cache just published one that not only is named for a local establishment, requires you to go inside and ask for the cache and at the bottom of the description, urges you to try the food. I saw it moments after it was published, so it wasn't post edited. I could have instantly come here screaming "WHY" and we'd probably be on our 100th reply on commercial caches.

Unless it's really serious, running around slapping people in the face with the guideline book and calling them out in the forums seems unnecessary. At least to me.

8k · October 25, 2012

The way I see the reviewer owes me one. I'm now working on a cache to promote my agenda critical of religious swag in caches that will be placed next to a parochial school and I expect it to be published. Besides this will be a far sweeter revenge than posting a rant in the forums

:unsure:

Why were these caches ever approved?

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

Join the conversation