Jump to content

Non-family-friendly caches


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I submitted a cache that the Volunteer Reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals declined to publish. One of the reasons they gave is that the cache is not family friendly. (The cache's GC Code is GC477QB and appeal ID is 347245, for any reviewers who want to check on "the other side of the story.")

 

My submitted cache includes a quiz. To answer the questions, most geocachers probably would go to a geocaching podcast website where the hosts use crude language. My cache listing page does not contain inappropriate language. It does have a prominent warning about the podcast's language and advises parental discretion. It also displays a "Not-Kid-Friendly" attribute. The podcast website's homepage doesn't contain crude language. It displays a warning about "explicit lyrics." To hear the family-unfriendly language, therefore, one must leave my cache listing page, go to the podcast's homepage, and click on one of the podcast episodes.

 

I realize Groundspeak wants their website to be family friendly, so parents can feel fairly comfortable browsing it with their children. It was my understanding, however, that, beyond the cache listing page, Groundspeak leaves it to parents to best decide what is or is not appropriate for their children.

 

For example, I've attended at least four geocaching events held in pubs where minors weren't allowed. I've found caches in parking lots of family-unfriendly casinos, bars, and liquor stores. I know of caches hidden outside adult stores and in clothing-optional locations.

 

If it is Groundspeak's policy to intervene beyond the cache listing page, then what are that policy's limits? Do they deny caches that reviewers believe aren't appropriate for 8-year-olds? 12-year-olds? 17-year-olds? Do they forbid caches placed outside strip clubs and bars but allow them outside halfway houses and video arcades? Some parents might not want their children to search for caches in parks where gays hang out, near coffee shops, or around chophouses.

 

I know Groundspeak lets parents decide whether their geocaching kids should climb tall trees, rappel down cliffs, walk in high-crime neighborhoods, or place hands near live electrical wires. It just seems odd that Groundspeak makes decisions regarding the moral safety of those same geocaching kids.

Link to comment

Interesting.

The only reference to "family friendly" I've seen in the guidelines is concerning the contents of a cache. There isn't anything in the guidelines that specifies that the cache listing must be family friendly, but this page in the Help Center does mention it.

I'm curious what appeals says. Make sure you come back and tell us what happens.

Link to comment

Reading the notes it seems to me that the reviewer's primary objection was the commercial nature of the site you were directing people to. But yes, Groundspeak does try to keep the cache pages family friendly even though all caches aren't necessarily in family friendly locations.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Reading the notes it seems to me that the reviewer's primary objection was the commercial nature of the site you were directing people to. But yes, Groundspeak does try to keep the cache pages family friendly even though all caches aren't necessarily in family friendly locations.

I'd be happy to discuss whether or not my submitted cache is commercial in another thread. But I'd like to focus on Groundspeak's family-friendly policy here. Both the Volunteer Reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals also said one of the reasons my cache cannot be published is because it isn't family friendly.

 

As I noted, I realize Groundspeak strives to keep its website family friendly. My cache listing page doesn't contain any inappropriate language or any other family-unfriendly content.

 

I assume the Volunteer Reviewer's and Groundspeak Appeal's objections to my unfriendly cache must relate to the podcast website. I'm rather surprised that they would use something beyond the cache listing page to deem my cache family unfriendly.

Link to comment

Interesting.

The only reference to "family friendly" I've seen in the guidelines is concerning the contents of a cache. There isn't anything in the guidelines that specifies that the cache listing must be family friendly, but this page in the Help Center does mention it.

I'm curious what appeals says. Make sure you come back and tell us what happens.

Yes, that Help Center page states, "Cache pages should be family friendly."

 

I noted to both the reviewer and appeals that my cache page was family friendly. Neither of them pointed me to anything on that cache page that they found objectionable. The proposed cache location is family friendly. I assume they found the podcast to be family unfriendly.

Link to comment

The objection to the podcast link was chiefly because of the commercial nature of that site. The fact that it was not a family friendly site was a secondary issue at least from the notes I saw.

 

However, if there was no commercial content on the site, it probably still would have been rejected due to the non family friendly content of the site you wanted searchers to link to. I don't see why that would be controversial.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

However, if there was no commercial content on the site, it probably still would have been rejected due to the non family friendly content of the site you wanted searchers to link to. I don't see why that would be controversial.

Not controversial. I'm just confused about the family-friendly policy's limits.

 

Is it okay to have geocaching event's in non-family-friendly pubs but not okay to refer to a podcast that uses crude language? Presumably, parents are in a better position than Groundspeak to decide whether they want their kids to be exposed to strip clubs, bars, clothing-optional beaches, gay-friendly parks, chophouses, etc.

 

I don't expect 8-year-olds to solve my cache page's quiz, just like I don't expect 8-year-olds to to necessarily rappel down cliffs.

 

Geocachers are a diverse group of people with differing ages, physical abilities, and interests. Not every cache has to appeal to every geocacher. Individuals can decide for themselves (and their children) which caches they'll search for and which they won't. Not every cache has to be kid friendly. Just like not every cache is wheel chair accessible and not every cacher enjoys puzzles.

Link to comment

Could the puzzle be solved without watching the podcast episodes?

If that's the reason why my cache is family unfriendly, then I'd happily create my own web page that lists all the puzzle's answers. (I'd make it hard to find this web page, though, since the cache's Difficulty Rating is 4.5.)

 

The problem is, I don't know if that would satisfy Groundspeak's family-friendly policy. Nobody wants to explain what is or is not acceptable under that policy. They might feel that all paths towards answering my quiz must be family friendly.

 

As far as I can tell, Groundspeak only specifies that the cache listing page must be family friendly.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

As I noted, I realize Groundspeak strives to keep its website family friendly. My cache listing page doesn't contain any inappropriate language or any other family-unfriendly content.

 

I assume the Volunteer Reviewer's and Groundspeak Appeal's objections to my unfriendly cache must relate to the podcast website. I'm rather surprised that they would use something beyond the cache listing page to deem my cache family unfriendly.

 

I can't see the unpublished listing, but it sounds like you link to or otherwise point users to this site with crude language to be used in association with your listing.

 

How can your page be innocent while it points to a site that would not be considered family-friendly? Just because you don't have any of that content listed directly on your page, you're suggesting that it should be outside what the reviewer considers in the listing? At the same time you want to incorporate its use as part of the caching experience? I would suggest that's a double-standard.

 

Your other argument is much stronger. Let the parents be the censors. It would be cool if there were search options or account setting sfor filtering out "not kid friendly" caches so that parents can still feel safe letting kids navigate the site -or so I can avoid those same caches if I wish . . .

Link to comment

I can't see the unpublished listing, but it sounds like you link to or otherwise point users to this site with crude language to be used in association with your listing.

 

How can your page be innocent while it points to a site that would not be considered family-friendly? Just because you don't have any of that content listed directly on your page, you're suggesting that it should be outside what the reviewer considers in the listing? At the same time you want to incorporate its use as part of the caching experience? I would suggest that's a double-standard.

I believe my cache is family friendly because Groundspeak only specifies that the cache listing page must be family friendly. And I can understand why Groundspeak wants parents to feel fairly comfortable browsing www.geocaching.com with their children. So my cache page doesn't contain any inappropriate content.

 

If geocachers want to visit non-Groundspeak websites with their children, then they should exercise their parental discretion. My cache page helps them do that by providing a warning and displaying a "Not Kid Friendly" attribute. The podcast's homepage also displays a warning.

 

Earlier this month, I attended a geocaching event held in a pub. The cache page warned, "sorry, no minors" and displayed the "Not Kid Friendly" attribute. I think that should suffice, and I was glad the cache was published. I've also attended at least three other geocaching events held in pubs. I enjoyed all of them and was glad to see Groundspeak allowed them. But that would be the double-standard I see here.

 

Many published caches have links to Wikipedia. But those Wikipedia pages might contain links to pages that many parents wouldn't want their kids to see. Those parents probably exercise appropriate discretion. I'm glad those caches were published. But that's another double-standard I see here.

Link to comment

I think you pretty much have your answer. Linking to non family friendly pages is, in the eyes of GS, not family friendly. The podcast you link to is not family friendly even if it has a not offensive home page.

Wikipedia doesn't have an offensive homepage, but many parents wouldn't want their children to visit certain Wikipedia pages. Yet Groundspeak publishes caches with links to Wikipedia.

 

But my question isn't really about my particular cache. It's more about what is or is not considered acceptable. What are the limits to Groundspeak's family-friendly policy?

 

Will Groundspeak publish caches they consider appropriate for 15-year-olds? Can events be held inside pubs? If somebody reports that a cache is hidden at a clothing-optional beach, then will it be archived? If a cache listing page links to a web page that links to another web page that links to another web page that is family unfriendly, then will it be published?

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Just curious about the level of not friendly. Can you supply a path to the pod cast w/o posting a link which could lock the thread (or at least get deleted).

One podcast host frequently uses profanity and makes sexual innuendos. Usually dozens of times during each episode. The other host does so occasionally.

 

I agree the podcast episodes are family unfriendly. I don't expect children to listen to the podcasts. My cache is intended for adults, just like geocaching events held in pubs are intended for adults.

Link to comment

I agree the podcast episodes are family unfriendly. I don't expect children to listen to the podcasts. My cache is intended for adults, just like geocaching events held in pubs are intended for adults.

 

Can you kind of give me an idea of what about the podcast you expect people to use to find your cache and what isn't age appropriate in said cast?

Link to comment

Just curious about the level of not friendly. Can you supply a path to the pod cast w/o posting a link which could lock the thread (or at least get deleted).

One podcast host frequently uses profanity and makes sexual innuendos. Usually dozens of times during each episode. The other host does so occasionally.

 

I agree the podcast episodes are family unfriendly. I don't expect children to listen to the podcasts. My cache is intended for adults, just like geocaching events held in pubs are intended for adults.

 

I feel for you, but I think it was appropriate that your cache was rejected.

 

I wouldn't appreciate a puzzle cache where I needed to listen to a podcast with lots of profanity and sexual innuendo.

 

You should find another way.

Link to comment
Is it okay to have geocaching event's in non-family-friendly pubs but not okay to refer to a podcast that uses crude language? Presumably, parents are in a better position than Groundspeak to decide whether they want their kids to be exposed to strip clubs, bars, clothing-optional beaches, gay-friendly parks, chophouses, etc.

 

I've been to dozens of events in pubs and bars. I never encountered a non "family friendly" atmosphere. Kids and parents alike seem to enjoy those events. An event in a strip club? I doubt one would be published because that would cross the line. I'm sure you understand the difference and are only interested in stirring the pot.

Link to comment

I've been to dozens of events in pubs and bars. I never encountered a non "family friendly" atmosphere. Kids and parents alike seem to enjoy those events.

It may be different where you live, but up here in Western Canada (where the OP is from), minors are not allowed in pubs (there are a select few exceptions). Events held in pubs around here are expressly for adults only. I would think these would fall under "family unfriendly" because children are not allowed, but they keep getting published. I think that's part of why the OP is so confused about the policy (or lack of).

 

Whatever Groundspeak decides, they need to document it. This seems to be yet another undocumented guideline. If a cache listing or a website being linked to needs to be family friendly, and caches will be denied on that basis, the guidelines should say so. Currently, they don't.

Link to comment

I agree the podcast episodes are family unfriendly. I don't expect children to listen to the podcasts. My cache is intended for adults, just like geocaching events held in pubs are intended for adults.

Can you kind of give me an idea of what about the podcast you expect people to use to find your cache and what isn't age appropriate in said cast?

The quiz has 13 questions, none of which involve anything that's kid-unfriendly. (The questions are listed on the cache page.) To answer these questions, though, people probably must listen to 28 podcast episodes. All the episodes include kid-unfriendly language. All the answers to the questions are numbers. When properly combined, the numbers produce coordinates.

Link to comment

I feel for you, but I think it was appropriate that your cache was rejected.

 

I wouldn't appreciate a puzzle cache where I needed to listen to a podcast with lots of profanity and sexual innuendo.

 

You should find another way.

I don't expect everyone to appreciate the cache, not even all adults. There are plenty of puzzles I haven't solved. It's easy to ignore them.

 

My wife and I have created numerous caches specifically with kids in mind, and they have received many favourite points. I have no problem with kid-friendly caches. I also have no problem with caches aimed at adults, including puzzles that require calculus or advanced trigonometry. Or caches on cliffs, in tall trees, on clothing-optional beaches, events in pubs, etc.

Link to comment
Is it okay to have geocaching event's in non-family-friendly pubs but not okay to refer to a podcast that uses crude language? Presumably, parents are in a better position than Groundspeak to decide whether they want their kids to be exposed to strip clubs, bars, clothing-optional beaches, gay-friendly parks, chophouses, etc.

I've been to dozens of events in pubs and bars. I never encountered a non "family friendly" atmosphere. Kids and parents alike seem to enjoy those events. An event in a strip club? I doubt one would be published because that would cross the line. I'm sure you understand the difference and are only interested in stirring the pot.

All four of the pub events I attended were in establishments that didn't allow children on the premises (at least at the times when these events were held). A couple mentioned this on the cache listing page. All four displayed the "Not Kid Friendly" attribute.

 

My purpose isn't to "stir the pot." My purpose is to receive some clarification about Groundspeak's family-friendly policy. I spent a lot of time creating a cache that I felt met Groundspeak's guidelines. It would be helpful if I (and others) could avoid that mistake in the future.

 

You believe Groundspeak wouldn't publish an event in a strip club. Okay, that adds some clarity. What about a cache hidden in a strip club parking lot? Would Groundspeak publish a cache hidden on a clothing-optional beach if the cache listing page warned parents about the location?

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Not kid friendly due to the nature of the venue (kids not allowed) is a whole 'nother animal from the possibility that a kid might innocently click on a link and be exposed to some language their parents might have wished they weren't exposed to.

 

Granted this might happen anyway if the child is left alone at the computer for a long enough time, but I do think the degrees of separation need to be more than one.

Link to comment

My submitted cache includes a quiz. To answer the questions, most geocachers probably would go to a geocaching podcast website where the hosts use crude language.

 

Could be taken as an advertisement for a product (in this case a podcast). Another equal example would be having to go into a restaurant and have to use menu item #3 to decipher a cache.

Link to comment

I agree the podcast episodes are family unfriendly. I don't expect children to listen to the podcasts. My cache is intended for adults, just like geocaching events held in pubs are intended for adults.

Can you kind of give me an idea of what about the podcast you expect people to use to find your cache and what isn't age appropriate in said cast?

The quiz has 13 questions, none of which involve anything that's kid-unfriendly. (The questions are listed on the cache page.) To answer these questions, though, people probably must listen to 28 podcast episodes. All the episodes include kid-unfriendly language. All the answers to the questions are numbers. When properly combined, the numbers produce coordinates.

 

Okay. Still not clear about what isn't age appropriate but if it can be broadcasted on the radio airwaves (not internet language only) I think you are good to go.

Link to comment

My submitted cache includes a quiz. To answer the questions, most geocachers probably would go to a geocaching podcast website where the hosts use crude language.

Could be taken as an advertisement for a product (in this case a podcast). Another equal example would be having to go into a restaurant and have to use menu item #3 to decipher a cache.

Yes, it might be considered a commercial cache if it somehow leads people to a commercial website.

 

In this thread, however, I'm trying to focus on Groundspeak's family-friendly policy. One of the reasons the Volunteer Reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals denied publication was because they deemed my cache to be family unfriendly. I'm seeking some clarification about that particular policy.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Do you have a web site? I wonder if you could put a link to an age verifier between your cache page and the pod-cast site?

I do have a website, and I'd certainly be willing to add an age verifier (although age verifiers aren't particularly effective). Before I do that, however, it would be nice to know if that would satisfy Groundspeak's family-friendly policy.

Link to comment

I once complained about a cache in the parking lot of a porn store. Sorry: Adult Store. The cache name included the words "Slow Poke". Yeah. We know what you were thinking. I was told that caches in porn store parking lots were permitted. "If you don't want your kids to see it, drive on." One log included: "Walked from the nearby gas station and disturbed two gentlemen in the parking lot. It looked like they were doing some product testing. I do not think that this is a good place for a geocache. TFTC."

I sounds like this is an area that could use some better definition by TPTB. Ot, they could beg the point and say that your cache page is too commercial.

Link to comment

Not kid friendly due to the nature of the venue (kids not allowed) is a whole 'nother animal from the possibility that a kid might innocently click on a link and be exposed to some language their parents might have wished they weren't exposed to.

 

Granted this might happen anyway if the child is left alone at the computer for a long enough time, but I do think the degrees of separation need to be more than one.

The original version of my cache page contained neither the web address nor the name of the podcast. Part of the challenge was to figure out which podcast it was. Even if there was a link, the podcast homepage isn't family unfriendly. There would have to be at least two innocent clicks.

 

Despite the lack of a web address or podcast name, both the Volunteer Reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals deemed the cache to be family unfriendly.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

I feel for you, but I think it was appropriate that your cache was rejected.

 

I wouldn't appreciate a puzzle cache where I needed to listen to a podcast with lots of profanity and sexual innuendo.

 

You should find another way.

I don't expect everyone to appreciate the cache, not even all adults. There are plenty of puzzles I haven't solved. It's easy to ignore them.

 

My wife and I have created numerous caches specifically with kids in mind, and they have received many favourite points. I have no problem with kid-friendly caches. I also have no problem with caches aimed at adults, including puzzles that require calculus or advanced trigonometry. Or caches on cliffs, in tall trees, on clothing-optional beaches, events in pubs, etc.

 

I agree with you on some points. I don't think caches should be published on nude beaches and I disagree with events in pubs as well. I argued with my reviewer early on about events being held in places that exclude a portion of the geocaching population, however, the response was that it can be really hard to find an affordable venue so it's allowed.

 

However, you can't compare swearing to calculus. One is likely to be offensive, the other is not. I think maybe your definition of "family-friendly" is different than Groundspeak's. What they mean, I think, is that the cache page and the links contained on it must not contain offensive material.

Link to comment

However, you can't compare swearing to calculus. One is likely to be offensive, the other is not.

How right you are! Many find calculus very offensive. In fact, attempting a tough calculus problem can lead to swearing. Now you can understand why there's a lot of head-scratching in Seattle!

Link to comment

As I noted previously, the original version of my cache page contained neither the web address nor the name of the podcast. Part of the challenge was to figure out which podcast it was. Even if there was a link, the podcast homepage isn't family unfriendly. There would have to be at least two innocent clicks.

 

Despite the lack of a web address or podcast name, both the Volunteer Reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals deemed the cache to be family unfriendly.

 

I guess I'm confused. Are you saying there was NO reference to the podcasts/website on your page? No link, no web address, no name of the podcast, etc. How would the reviewer and appeals make the connection that to solve your cache, you'd have to visit a family unfriendly site?

 

Or do you mean you provided a link but did not give any specific info on which podcast(s) to listen to? If there was a link, that link IS part of your cache page. You put it there and if that link leads to something commercial or unfriendly, that is reason enough to keep a cache from being published.

 

If there is a link...what if you just removed it? Then it'd be no different from the myriad of other puzzles where the solver has to search around and find the correct page on their own.

Link to comment

I feel for you, but I think it was appropriate that your cache was rejected.

 

I wouldn't appreciate a puzzle cache where I needed to listen to a podcast with lots of profanity and sexual innuendo.

 

You should find another way.

I don't expect everyone to appreciate the cache, not even all adults. There are plenty of puzzles I haven't solved. It's easy to ignore them.

 

My wife and I have created numerous caches specifically with kids in mind, and they have received many favourite points. I have no problem with kid-friendly caches. I also have no problem with caches aimed at adults, including puzzles that require calculus or advanced trigonometry. Or caches on cliffs, in tall trees, on clothing-optional beaches, events in pubs, etc.

I agree with you on some points. I don't think caches should be published on nude beaches and I disagree with events in pubs as well. I argued with my reviewer early on about events being held in places that exclude a portion of the geocaching population, however, the response was that it can be really hard to find an affordable venue so it's allowed.

 

However, you can't compare swearing to calculus. One is likely to be offensive, the other is not. I think maybe your definition of "family-friendly" is different than Groundspeak's. What they mean, I think, is that the cache page and the links contained on it must not contain offensive material.

I think you missed my point. I realize the podcast isn't family friendly and its content will offend some people. That's why I included the warning about the crude language. You seemed to suggest that you believe it was appropriate for Groundspeak to reject my cache because you (and others) wouldn't appreciate it.

 

My point is that no cache will be appreciated by all geocachers, not even by all adult geocachers. Some people don't appreciate any kinds of puzzles. Others don't appreciate micro caches. Still others don't appreciate power trails. Then there are LPCs, guardrail caches, rappelling caches, SCUBA caches, etc. People can ignore the caches they don't appreciate and search for the ones they do.

 

I didn't expect my cache to be appreciated by everyone. And there's no Groundspeak guideline that says it must be appreciated by everyone. Vive la différence!

Link to comment

As I noted previously, the original version of my cache page contained neither the web address nor the name of the podcast. Part of the challenge was to figure out which podcast it was. Even if there was a link, the podcast homepage isn't family unfriendly. There would have to be at least two innocent clicks.

 

Despite the lack of a web address or podcast name, both the Volunteer Reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals deemed the cache to be family unfriendly.

I guess I'm confused. Are you saying there was NO reference to the podcasts/website on your page? No link, no web address, no name of the podcast, etc. How would the reviewer and appeals make the connection that to solve your cache, you'd have to visit a family unfriendly site?

Yes, when I first submitted my cache for review, it contained neither a web address nor a podcast name. It did include the names of the two hosts. And the "Additional Hint" provided a clue about the podcast's city.

 

The reviewer knew the podcast was not family friendly because the cache page has always included a prominent warning about the podcast's crude language. I was also very upfront with the reviewer from the very beginning and included the podcast's name and web address in a "Reviewer Note."

 

If there is a link...what if you just removed it? Then it'd be no different from the myriad of other puzzles where the solver has to search around and find the correct page on their own.

That's what I thought, too.

Link to comment

I totally empathize. It is very frustrating when you put in effort for a puzzle, and it all gets rejected in the review phase.

 

Based on what you have said here, and on the input of others (including some Reviewers), I think this is a case best taken back to the drawing board.

 

Think of it as a beta test, step back, do some redesign, and submit a new version that could work. Perhaps your Reviewer would be willing to chat about ways to make the cache work within the guidelines (and their interpretation of your cache against the cited guidelines)

 

I'm going to venture a guess that a continued discussion here will only make you feel worse about it all. I say take these lemons and make some lemonade. I like the idea behind the cache, and hope that you can find a way to make it work.

Link to comment

I feel for you, but I think it was appropriate that your cache was rejected.

 

I wouldn't appreciate a puzzle cache where I needed to listen to a podcast with lots of profanity and sexual innuendo.

 

You should find another way.

I don't expect everyone to appreciate the cache, not even all adults. There are plenty of puzzles I haven't solved. It's easy to ignore them.

 

My wife and I have created numerous caches specifically with kids in mind, and they have received many favourite points. I have no problem with kid-friendly caches. I also have no problem with caches aimed at adults, including puzzles that require calculus or advanced trigonometry. Or caches on cliffs, in tall trees, on clothing-optional beaches, events in pubs, etc.

I agree with you on some points. I don't think caches should be published on nude beaches and I disagree with events in pubs as well. I argued with my reviewer early on about events being held in places that exclude a portion of the geocaching population, however, the response was that it can be really hard to find an affordable venue so it's allowed.

 

However, you can't compare swearing to calculus. One is likely to be offensive, the other is not. I think maybe your definition of "family-friendly" is different than Groundspeak's. What they mean, I think, is that the cache page and the links contained on it must not contain offensive material.

I think you missed my point. I realize the podcast isn't family friendly and its content will offend some people. That's why I included the warning about the crude language. You seemed to suggest that you believe it was appropriate for Groundspeak to reject my cache because you (and others) wouldn't appreciate it.

 

My point is that no cache will be appreciated by all geocachers, not even by all adult geocachers. Some people don't appreciate any kinds of puzzles. Others don't appreciate micro caches. Still others don't appreciate power trails. Then there are LPCs, guardrail caches, rappelling caches, SCUBA caches, etc. People can ignore the caches they don't appreciate and search for the ones they do.

 

I didn't expect my cache to be appreciated by everyone. And there's no Groundspeak guideline that says it must be appreciated by everyone. Vive la différence!

 

I do get your point that not all caches will be of interest to all cachers. Fair enough, but there has to be limits to what our community finds acceptable.

 

It's not about people not appreciating your puzzle cache, it's about it being in poor taste, being offensive etc.

 

Surely you understand the difference between someone not appreciating a LPC and someone not appreciating swearing.

Link to comment

However, you can't compare swearing to calculus. One is likely to be offensive, the other is not.

How right you are! Many find calculus very offensive. In fact, attempting a tough calculus problem can lead to swearing. Now you can understand why there's a lot of head-scratching in Seattle!

 

:laughing: I have a calculus puzzle cache, in fact, which has lead to alot of cursing and also some downright indignant emails. :laughing:

Link to comment

I agree with your point that the Guidelines might need make clearer as to how wide the Family Friendly requirement goes. Also, why events in establishments with age limits do not violate it (although as someone said earlier I suspect a bar/pub will pass while a strip club wouldn't).

 

Keep in mind that I don't think "family friendly" means only "appropriate for children". Would you want your grandparents or parents to see it too? Would it be offensive to a wide swath of the public? No matter how much someone might curse at ciphers or calculus or obscure trivia, there will be multiple sources for a solution inoffensive all all ages.

 

On the other hand, not only does your puzzle seem to be very commercial/agenda driven by forcing puzzle solvers to watch a specific podcast, it is a podcast that sounds like it would be inappropriate for children but in language and verbage offensive and disgusting to most people within earshot.

 

I'm disappointed in general that a podcast with the juvenile behavior you descirbe exists. I hope their viewership is small. I thought that the geocaching community was mostly more mature than that.

Link to comment

Just curious about the level of not friendly. Can you supply a path to the pod cast w/o posting a link which could lock the thread (or at least get deleted).

One podcast host frequently uses profanity and makes sexual innuendos. Usually dozens of times during each episode. The other host does so occasionally.

 

I agree the podcast episodes are family unfriendly. I don't expect children to listen to the podcasts. My cache is intended for adults, just like geocaching events held in pubs are intended for adults.

I think you hit the answer to your own question right there...

 

"My cache is intended for adults..." - In other words...not a family

 

"I agree the podcast episodes are family unfriendly." - Then why base a puzzle on them???

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment

How can you go to the cache page of a cache that's unpublished? How can you find it?

I think you have to have a "reviewer" account to access an unpublished page. Or be the owner of the page.

Can't be, since all these people are looking at his cache page to discuss

Can be and is correct. The only person who has made specific comments on the page content is a volunteer moderator and reviewer. Everyone else has just been responding to the dribs of info from the OP and their own conjecture.

From what Brian posted, it seems that the primary reason given was that it was commercial in nature, and the family friendly issue was secondary. But the OP doesn't want to discuss why his specific puzzle was rejecas ted, just to parse the details of the family friendly term and how it's applied during the review process.

 

Based on the OP's argument one can only infer that parking lots of adult supply stores are OK for placements as long as you don't promote the store. And pubs which exclude minors are OK event venues as long as you don't promote the pub in your listing. I guess this particular podcast is off the table for puzzle caches as it is both commercial and offensive?

Link to comment

As I noted previously, the original version of my cache page contained neither the web address nor the name of the podcast. Part of the challenge was to figure out which podcast it was. Even if there was a link, the podcast homepage isn't family unfriendly. There would have to be at least two innocent clicks.

 

Despite the lack of a web address or podcast name, both the Volunteer Reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals deemed the cache to be family unfriendly.

I guess I'm confused. Are you saying there was NO reference to the podcasts/website on your page? No link, no web address, no name of the podcast, etc. How would the reviewer and appeals make the connection that to solve your cache, you'd have to visit a family unfriendly site?

Yes, when I first submitted my cache for review, it contained neither a web address nor a podcast name. It did include the names of the two hosts. And the "Additional Hint" provided a clue about the podcast's city.

 

The reviewer knew the podcast was not family friendly because the cache page has always included a prominent warning about the podcast's crude language. I was also very upfront with the reviewer from the very beginning and included the podcast's name and web address in a "Reviewer Note."

 

If there is a link...what if you just removed it? Then it'd be no different from the myriad of other puzzles where the solver has to search around and find the correct page on their own.

That's what I thought, too.

Except...in order to solve the puzzle one needs to listen to crude content...

 

While the concept of such a puzzle is common (listening to materials)...I think you pushed the line to far by basically requiring people to do that (listen to crude, offensive, or objectionable) material. Yes, I know and get it that not all people do puzzles...and puzzles are not for everyone...but using that "Reasoning" for why this cache should be published is pushing the limits as well. In my opinion...the content of the puzzle...and thus the cache crossed the line.

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment

I do get your point that not all caches will be of interest to all cachers. Fair enough, but there has to be limits to what our community finds acceptable.

 

It's not about people not appreciating your puzzle cache, it's about it being in poor taste, being offensive etc.

 

Surely you understand the difference between someone not appreciating a LPC and someone not appreciating swearing.

Again, I realize some people will find the podcast content to be offensive. That's why I included the prominent warning about the podcast's crude language (and a "Not Kid Friendly" attribute). That's why the podcast's homepage includes a warning about the "explicit lyrics."

 

People won't be offended by my cache listing page. If they don't appreciate swearing, then they don't need to go to the podcast website. Just like those who who don't appreciate LPCs can drive right past them. Individuals can make choices.

Link to comment

Keep in mind that I don't think "family friendly" means only "appropriate for children". Would you want your grandparents or parents to see it too? Would it be offensive to a wide swath of the public? No matter how much someone might curse at ciphers or calculus or obscure trivia, there will be multiple sources for a solution inoffensive all all ages.

None of my grandparents are alive. As far as my parents are concerned, I suspect that they (like me) probably wouldn't really like or dislike the crude language. But they'd probably enjoy some of the other humor found in the podcasts, especially if they were into geocaching.

 

Like many other shows, these podcasts have their good points and their bad. Individuals weigh these factors and decide if the show is worth their time. Some will think it is. Some won't. Vive la différence!

Edited by CanadianRockies
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...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...