Non-family-friendly caches

3.1k · March 28, 2013

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

Yes, but my cache page is family friendly. According to Groundspeak, "Cache pages should be family friendly."

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

Because plenty of adults might enjoy the puzzle.

6.7k · March 28, 2013

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

Yes, but my cache page is family friendly. According to Groundspeak, "Cache pages should be family friendly."

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

Because plenty of adults might enjoy the puzzle.

I think the argument can be fairly made that a cache page that directs someone to non family friendly content is not a family friendly page. Even with the warning on your page and the podcast page you are still directing users to proscribed content.

6.1k · March 28, 2013

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

Because plenty of adults might enjoy the puzzle.

Someone would still have to visit a page that contains profanity and sexual innuendos dozens of times during each episode to solve it. Groundspeak does not judge any outdoor locations for being family friendly, only anything online associated or linked to the page or solving the puzzle. Needle and porn at ground zero is usually ignored, as they cannot control that unless it is inside of the cache. Most nudist colonies allow children, so they are family friendly anyhow. If you don't like it, just tell them to go @#$% a @#$%^& until @#$*%, and then @#$%$# their @#$%&*!

3.1k · March 28, 2013

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.

One of the points I made was that not everyone has to appreciate every cache. People seem to understand that concept now.

Another point I made was that people who are offended by crude language don't have to solve my puzzle. They can ignore my puzzle. My cache page has a warning that makes it very easy for them to avoid the crude language.

Some people might take offense to the World of Warcraft puzzles that have been published on Groundspeak. Guess what. They can ignore those puzzles.

If a puzzle offends you, then simply ignore it. I'm not sure why that's a difficult concept to understand.

March 28, 2013

I do not think you are going to get Groundspeak to publish a definitive list of every eventuality that may or not meet their 'family friendly' guidelines and to be honest I wouldn't want then to. The possibilities and different concepts are just too vast to cover. They need to take each scenario and review it on its merits. In your case they don't wish for it to be connected to their listing site so it has been rejected and you then need to move along to the next idea. I feel you knew it was pushing the boundaries at the outset so you can't be that surprised by the decision.

March 28, 2013

If a puzzle offends you, then simply ignore it. I'm not sure why that's a difficult concept to understand.

Kinda how I feel about your position. I'm not sure why you can't understand that your cache was DENIED. Move on with another family friendly cache. :laughing:

Edited March 28, 2013 by the4dirtydogs

1.2k · March 28, 2013

If a puzzle offends you, then simply ignore it. I'm not sure why that's a difficult concept to understand.

Kinda how I feel about your position. I'm not sure why you can't understand that your cache was DENIED. Move on with another family friendly cache.

+1

3.1k · March 28, 2013

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.

I agree it would be helpful if Groundspeak clarified their family-friendly policy. It seems that different Volunteer Reviewers interpret it differently.

The podcast that my cache references is mentioned in at least 70 other caches. They were published in Illinois, Oregon, and Georgia.

Throughout Western Canada, events are held in pubs/bars that don't allow minors on their premises.

There are cache pages that warn geocachers about potential nudity at clothing-optional locations. Reviewers have published these in Oregon, Florida, and Vermont.

In a different thread, Volunteer Reviewer Keystone noted that he had published five caches located outside adult stores.

3.1k · March 28, 2013

I do not think you are going to get Groundspeak to publish a definitive list of every eventuality that may or not meet their 'family friendly' guidelines and to be honest I wouldn't want then to. The possibilities and different concepts are just too vast to cover. They need to take each scenario and review it on its merits. In your case they don't wish for it to be connected to their listing site so it has been rejected and you then need to move along to the next idea. I feel you knew it was pushing the boundaries at the outset so you can't be that surprised by the decision.

I was surprised by the decision. Groundspeak has seen fit to publish at least 70 other caches that mention the same podcast that my proposed cache uses in its puzzle. Three different Volunteer Reviewers published those caches.

Goundspeak's family friendly policy should be clarified so Volunteer Reviewers can interpret it in a consistent manner.

March 28, 2013

I do not think you are going to get Groundspeak to publish a definitive list of every eventuality that may or not meet their 'family friendly' guidelines and to be honest I wouldn't want then to. The possibilities and different concepts are just too vast to cover. They need to take each scenario and review it on its merits. In your case they don't wish for it to be connected to their listing site so it has been rejected and you then need to move along to the next idea. I feel you knew it was pushing the boundaries at the outset so you can't be that surprised by the decision.

I was surprised by the decision. Groundspeak has seen fit to publish at least 70 other caches that mention the same podcast that my proposed cache uses in its puzzle. Three different Volunteer Reviewers published those caches.

Goundspeak's family friendly policy should be clarified so Volunteer Reviewers can interpret it in a consistent manner.

I am unfamiliar with the podcast in question but I assume that a 'mention' is somewhat different to an in depth requirement to study the content to answer specific questions.

If I was a CO that felt I needed to consider setting a cache that had any possibility that it could be construed as 'family unfriendly' then I would run it by my reviewer first for their interpretation.

7.8k · March 28, 2013

The podcast that my cache references is mentioned in at least 70 other caches.

This is probably a good time to quote the following from the guidelines:

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches.

March 28, 2013

Currently there is a puzzle in the Salem, Oregon Metro area-it requires you to watch the movie SAW, a very GORY and GOOLISH movie, of which I have no desire to expose myself to. However, not everyone has to do that puzzle. I choose not to. How is that type of viewing considered family friendly (although I know a few too many children who watch slasher films)? Groundspeak has a lot of fluidity in its policy enforcement-especially the commercial version (a whole OTHER topic of discussion).

Do I think that this cache needs to be archived? Heck no. I am a grown-up. I can read and know that NOPE That ain't for me. If you list on the cache page-the language may be offensive in this podcast. I think that is family friendly enough. You did your due dilagence for the parent.

The fluidity of enforcement is what is most frustrating to cachers.

Edited March 28, 2013 by boringgirl

3.1k · March 28, 2013

I agree it would be helpful if Groundspeak clarified their family-friendly policy. It seems that different Volunteer Reviewers interpret it differently.

The podcast that my cache references is mentioned in at least 70 other caches. They were published in Illinois, Oregon, and Georgia.

This is probably a good time to quote the following from the guidelines:

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches.

There, I put my sentence back into context. I wasn't citing the 70 other caches as reasons why my cache should be published. I cited them as examples of how different Volunteer Reviewers seem to interpret Groundspeak's family-friendly policy differently.

I think Groundspeak should clarify its policy.

Edited March 28, 2013 by CanadianRockies

3.1k · March 28, 2013

I don't think caches should be published on nude beaches...

Most nudist colonies allow children, so they are family friendly anyhow.

Different people have different beliefs about what is a family friendly cache. Some parents believe their children shouldn't see public nudity. For others, nudity is a very natural thing. What is or isn't appropriate for a particular child can depend on a wide range of factors, including age, religious beliefs, life experiences, etc.

I know Groundspeak feels individual parents can best make decisions about their children's physical well being (e.g., trees, cliffs, high-crime areas, live electrical wires). It just seems odd that Groundspeak feels they should insert themselves and make decisions about the moral well being of these same children. Aren't parents better able to make those choices?

March 29, 2013

How is that type of viewing considered family friendly (although I know a few too many children who watch slasher films)? Groundspeak has a lot of fluidity in its policy enforcement-especially the commercial version (a whole OTHER topic of discussion).

My guess is that Groundspeak does not approve of an unfamily-driendly activity that directly relates to geocaching -- the profane podcast.

I am now wondering what exactly is being considered profane. Time to listen to a Chicago geocaching podcast, if that is the subject here.

March 29, 2013

How is that type of viewing considered family friendly (although I know a few too many children who watch slasher films)? Groundspeak has a lot of fluidity in its policy enforcement-especially the commercial version (a whole OTHER topic of discussion).

My guess is that Groundspeak does not approve of an unfamily-driendly activity that directly relates to geocaching -- the profane podcast.

I am now wondering what exactly is being considered profane. Time to listen to a Chicago geocaching podcast, if that is the subject here.

Yes-however my point is, to solve the puzzle you must watch an R-Rated horror movie-a very gory slasher movie. It is tied to the cache puzzle and the only way to solve the puzzle is to watch a "unfamily-friendly" film. Same as listening to what Groundspeak and the Reviewer deemed a vulgar podcast. I don't blame this cacher for wanting a definition. The fluidity and the "don't use other caches as an example" card being played anytime there are questions...is frustrating to many.

March 29, 2013

Yes-however my point is, to solve the puzzle you must watch an R-Rated horror movie-a very gory slasher movie. It is tied to the cache puzzle and the only way to solve the puzzle is to watch a "unfamily-friendly" film. Same as listening to what Groundspeak and the Reviewer deemed a vulgar podcast. I don't blame this cacher for wanting a definition. The fluidity and the "don't use other caches as an example" card being played anytime there are questions...is frustrating to many.

Sure, I understand your point. My point is that Saw isn't a gory movie about geocaching, if you catch my drift here.

I am pointing out that allowing one type and not another that relates to geocaching could show a bias.

2.8k · March 29, 2013

I never encountered a non "family friendly" atmosphere.

An example.

14k · March 29, 2013

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.

I'm surprised that the thread has gone this long without some asking, but have you asked the reviewer?

Presumably, reviewers are allowed to deny publishing of a cache if they consider it not to be family friendly. In that case, it's up to the reviewer to make that subjective decision. It's an interesting topics but I doubt that you're ever going to get a list of the "Seven words you can't write in cache listing" (bows to George Carlin).

The posts about caches that exist in strip club parking lots, or clothing optional beach, or event caches in pubs might be examples for what *some* might consider to be family un-friendly but the "no precedent" guideline comes into play here.

3.1k · March 29, 2013

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.

I'm surprised that the thread has gone this long without some asking, but have you asked the reviewer?

The reviewer was surprised that other published caches had direct links to the podcast's website.

She also noted that it's not always easy for reviewers to tell from maps what types of businesses caches are located near. From that, I would tentatively infer that, if reviewers knew a cache was located near a family-unfriendly location, then they wouldn't publish it (and would archive such a cache if it was reported). But I'm not sure about such a conclusion.

And she said she doesn't have all the answers and asked me to send my proposed cache to appeals to get their take on it.

Groundspeak Appeals said my cache was not family friendly and didn't explain why.

Presumably, reviewers are allowed to deny publishing of a cache if they consider it not to be family friendly. In that case, it's up to the reviewer to make that subjective decision.

I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that Groundspeak generally encourages consistency among its reviewers.

Edited March 29, 2013 by CanadianRockies

March 29, 2013

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.

I'm surprised that the thread has gone this long without some asking, but have you asked the reviewer?

The reviewer was surprised that other published caches had direct links to the podcast's website.

She also noted that it's not always easy for reviewers to tell from maps what types of businesses caches are located near. From that, I would tentatively infer that, if reviewers knew a cache was located near a family-unfriendly location, then they wouldn't publish it (and would archive such a cache if it was reported). But I'm not sure about such a conclusion.

And she said she doesn't have all the answers and asked me to send my proposed cache to appeals to get their take on it.

Groundspeak Appeals said my cache was not family friendly and didn't explain why.

Presumably, reviewers are allowed to deny publishing of a cache if they consider it not to be family friendly. In that case, it's up to the reviewer to make that subjective decision.

I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that Groundspeak generally encourages consistency among its reviewers.

Groundspeak appeals did not need to explain why it wasn't family friendly you already know the reason why.

I am sure that Groundspeak fully encourages its reviewers to consistently take a subjective view on any caches that may be family unfriendly and most of them will be denied. Some may get through the net for the reasons you have cited but may then be archived when/if someone complains at a later date.

I have to ask why you are so determined to pursue the publishing of a cache listing that is clearly family unfriendly. It is clearly not that revolutionary as you, yourself have quoted that 70 other mentions have been listed.

March 29, 2013

Yes-however my point is, to solve the puzzle you must watch an R-Rated horror movie-a very gory slasher movie. It is tied to the cache puzzle and the only way to solve the puzzle is to watch a "unfamily-friendly" film. Same as listening to what Groundspeak and the Reviewer deemed a vulgar podcast. I don't blame this cacher for wanting a definition. The fluidity and the "don't use other caches as an example" card being played anytime there are questions...is frustrating to many.

Sure, I understand your point. My point is that Saw isn't a gory movie about geocaching, if you catch my drift here.

I am pointing out that allowing one type and not another that relates to geocaching could show a bias.

Ok, totally get the film not being about caching...what was that lame film about caching? Splinterheads...ugh so dumb I would label STUPID movies as not family friendly HA

7.9k · March 29, 2013

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.

I'm surprised that the thread has gone this long without some asking, but have you asked the reviewer?

The reviewer was surprised that other published caches had direct links to the podcast's website.

She also noted that it's not always easy for reviewers to tell from maps what types of businesses caches are located near. From that, I would tentatively infer that, if reviewers knew a cache was located near a family-unfriendly location, then they wouldn't publish it (and would archive such a cache if it was reported). But I'm not sure about such a conclusion.

And she said she doesn't have all the answers and asked me to send my proposed cache to appeals to get their take on it.

Groundspeak Appeals said my cache was not family friendly and didn't explain why.

Presumably, reviewers are allowed to deny publishing of a cache if they consider it not to be family friendly. In that case, it's up to the reviewer to make that subjective decision.

I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that Groundspeak generally encourages consistency among its reviewers.

So the reviewer said 'Naaaa,I'm not liking this one', and referred you to the lillypad.

The lillypad said, 'We don't like it either, because it's not 'family friendly'.'

I would have to think:

1. You are out of options to get it published in the original form.

2. Creating a puzzle that links to rude, crude and socially unacceptable podcasts (and probably any off-site content) could result in denial of publication.

Groundspeak generally encourages consistency among its reviewers

Only at the most basic of levels.

I can't count the times we have seen references to caches that would never have been published locally to one user, but another user has seen several just like it in their area.

3.1k · March 29, 2013

I am sure that Groundspeak fully encourages its reviewers to consistently take a subjective view on any caches that may be family unfriendly and most of them will be denied.

The problem is that there doesn't appear to be any Groundspeak guideline regarding family-friendly caches.

There is a Help Center article that states, "Cache pages should be family friendly." Thus, some reviewers might feel that only the cache pages need to be family friendly while others might feel that a cache page that references a website that has a link to a family-unfriendly audio file is not okay.

Because of this lack of clarity, some reviewers will publish events held in pubs that don't admit minors, while others might not. And some reviewers might publish caches placed at clothing-optional locations, while others might not.

Surely you agree it's hard for reviewers to consistently interpret a guideline if that guideline doesn't exist. It also makes it hard for cache hiders to know what is or is not allowed.

3.1k · March 29, 2013

Creating a puzzle that links to rude, crude and socially unacceptable podcasts (and probably any off-site content) could result in denial of publication.

What about puzzles that do not link to podcasts that use crude language, like mine?

Edited March 29, 2013 by CanadianRockies

7.9k · March 29, 2013

Creating a puzzle that links to rude, crude and socially unacceptable podcasts (and probably any off-site content) could result in denial of publication.

What about puzzles that do not link to podcasts that use crude language, like mine?

I guess I'm having trouble following the the trail here. :unsure:

I thought a cacher who wanted to solve your puzzle needed to visit the podcast site with crude language. No?

Even if there are no direct links, isn't that what they need to do?

Personally, I don't care and would probably get a chuckle or two if I decided to listen to those podcasts.

1.2k · March 29, 2013

nevermind, can't find my "beating the dead horse" gif.

Edited March 29, 2013 by cheech gang

March 29, 2013

I'm sure you understand the difference and are only interested in stirring the pot.

Wow. Patronizing and disrespectful much? You assume the world, ignore his logical points and then shrug him off like a trouble making 5 year old. I don't typically expect such bullying behavior from moderators. :angry: Way to set an example for the rest of us. :rolleyes:

Brian, did you ever for a minute stop to think that maybe he comes from a culture where the content of the podcast is no big deal. Geocaching is a global game and not every one in this great big wide world shares your limited world view.

Perhaps instead of writing him off as a trouble maker before anyone has even heard this "adult" materiel he should have the chance to let people hear it (and decide for them self) before you make such disrespectful, patronizing comments about him. Only then can there be thoughtful and informed discussion on the topic.

Perhaps you should respond to any of his logical points like why he, or I can point my cache page to a wikipedia article about, morse code for example but pointing it to a wiki article containing adult language such as the many pages *ABOUT* curse and swear world on wikipedia would not be allowed EVEN though I am sure that with six or seven clicks I can navigate on wikipedia from the morse code page to the page about a four letter word starting with F.

What exactly is family friendly anyway? What is good for my family may not be good for my cousin's family and what is not good for their family might be totally acceptable for the persons family down the block. So unless Groundspeak wants to tell us what "family friendly" is in their eyes they cannot expect us to read their minds especially because their business is so global and term "family friendly" varies so widely from place to place.

So please, Brian. Answer our questions, contribute to the discussions and even correct us when we break a rule. But don't EVER treat us with such disrespect when it is your job to stop such things.

Edited March 29, 2013 by releasethedogs

2.3k · March 29, 2013

Personally, I don't care and would probably get a chuckle or two if I decided to listen to those podcasts.

Not that my vote counts for anything, but I would personally be offended if I found myself listening to a podcast, or any audio, with unnecessarily crude language. Any puzzle cache that required me to listen to such language would immediately go on my Ignore List. And trust me, I'm no prude, I just find it offensive when used gratuitously. And I'm 63 years old.

To the OP: Was there no way to create the same puzzle and avoid this whole family-friendliness issue? There have to be tons of caching-related podcasts you could have used that don't resort to crude language. Or was this a matter of trying to push the envelope?

--Larry

1.4k · March 29, 2013

In 1964 when ruling on a case with the phrase "hard-core pornography," US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

I am NOT suggesting that OP's cache has anything to do with porn; indeed I have no opinions at all about the proposed cache as I have no first hand knowledge of it. I am suggesting that some things do not need definition as they should be up to the discretion of the adjudicator, in this case the local reviewer. Should the decision of the reviewer seem unsatisfactory, there is an appeal process that can be used.

The existing system, which allows wide variance of opinions among the various reviewers is good in that the guidelines can be fewer and broadly written. We don't need nor want a system with instructions so detailed and specific it that takes a lawyer to parse and interpret for us. Broad guidelines are flexible and will be interpreted differently by different people. Yet the system works. There will be an occasional bump in the road which will often leave someone disappointed. That is unfortunate but I'd rather live with that then the alternative.

March 29, 2013

It would seem that the real problem here is a definition of 'family-friendly'. Some seem to think it means 'children are allowed' (i.e. all the pointing at events in pubs and bars), but I usually take family-friendly' to mean 'non-offensive to a family'. Intentional or inadvertent exposure to something deemed socially undesirable, especially for children (profanity, violence, etc), is not family friendly, especially if there is no way to foresee it or avoid it (i.e. cache pages and links). Just a thought.

3.1k · March 30, 2013

Not that my vote counts for anything, but I would personally be offended if I found myself listening to a podcast, or any audio, with unnecessarily crude language. Any puzzle cache that required me to listen to such language would immediately go on my Ignore List. And trust me, I'm no prude, I just find it offensive when used gratuitously. And I'm 63 years old.

That's exactly what I'd expect people to do if they find such language offensive. My cache page even has a prominent warning about the crude language and advises parental discretion. It also displays a "Not Kid Friendly" attribute. If one somehow missed all that, then the podcast homepage warns about "explicit lyrics."

I'd expect such a puzzle to be enjoyed by some people and not by others. I don't expect it to appeal to everyone. Just like not every geocacher enjoys LPCs, guardrails caches, or power trails.

To the OP: Was there no way to create the same puzzle and avoid this whole family-friendliness issue? There have to be tons of caching-related podcasts you could have used that don't resort to crude language.

Sure, my puzzle could have referenced another podcast. I've listened to a few episodes of other podcasts, but this was the podcast I am most familiar with. I wanted the cache to be rather hard (it's Difficulty Rating is 4.5), and I was familiar with lots of trivia concerning this podcast.

I also wanted the quiz to include some humorous questions, and this particular podcast lends itself well to that. (No, not crude humor.)

I guess it's sort of like ice cream. I could eat vanilla ice cream, but I prefer cookie dough ice cream.

3.1k · March 30, 2013

The existing system, which allows wide variance of opinions among the various reviewers is good in that the guidelines can be fewer and broadly written. We don't need nor want a system with instructions so detailed and specific it that takes a lawyer to parse and interpret for us.

See Post #74, above.

3.1k · March 30, 2013

It would seem that the real problem here is a definition of 'family-friendly'. Some seem to think it means 'children are allowed' (i.e. all the pointing at events in pubs and bars), but I usually take family-friendly' to mean 'non-offensive to a family'. Intentional or inadvertent exposure to something deemed socially undesirable, especially for children (profanity, violence, etc), is not family friendly, especially if there is no way to foresee it or avoid it (i.e. cache pages and links). Just a thought.

I did think about that. My initial puzzle included neither the web address nor the name of the podcast in question. Part of the challenge was to figure out which podcast had the answers to the quiz questions.

My cache page had a prominent warning about the podcast's crude language, advised parental discretion, and displayed a "Not Kid Friendly" attribute. If one found the podcast's homepage, then there was another warning about "explicit lyrics" and it would require another click to actually hear the audio that contained the crude language.

Someone would have to deliberately seek out these audio files in order to be offended by them.

9.3k · March 30, 2013

Wow. Patronizing and disrespectful much? You assume the world, ignore his logical points and then shrug him off like a trouble making 5 year old.

I dunno. I thought Brian was spot on. :unsure:

March 30, 2013

What is especially funny is that this website is only for 18 years old or older users according to their rules. So why even bother with all the kid-friendly bits to begin with ;-)

5k · March 30, 2013

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.

I'm surprised that the thread has gone this long without some asking, but have you asked the reviewer?

The reviewer was surprised that other published caches had direct links to the podcast's website.

She also noted that it's not always easy for reviewers to tell from maps what types of businesses caches are located near. From that, I would tentatively infer that, if reviewers knew a cache was located near a family-unfriendly location, then they wouldn't publish it (and would archive such a cache if it was reported). But I'm not sure about such a conclusion.

And she said she doesn't have all the answers and asked me to send my proposed cache to appeals to get their take on it.

Groundspeak Appeals said my cache was not family friendly and didn't explain why.

Presumably, reviewers are allowed to deny publishing of a cache if they consider it not to be family friendly. In that case, it's up to the reviewer to make that subjective decision.

I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that Groundspeak generally encourages consistency among its reviewers.

So the reviewer said 'Naaaa,I'm not liking this one', and referred you to the lillypad.

The lillypad said, 'We don't like it either, because it's not 'family friendly'.'

I would have to think:

1. You are out of options to get it published in the original form.

2. Creating a puzzle that links to rude, crude and socially unacceptable podcasts (and probably any off-site content) could result in denial of publication.

Groundspeak generally encourages consistency among its reviewers

Only at the most basic of levels.

I can't count the times we have seen references to caches that would never have been published locally to one user, but another user has seen several just like it in their area.

It would be so much easier if everyone, especially Groundspeak, simply said what they really mean.

Your reviewer found your cache listing offensive. You appealed and Groundspeak agreed with the reviewer. It's pretty much the end of the story.

Additionally, you seem to want to stay away from discussion of the commercial aspects. I'm really curious why you want people to visit this particular site and listen to 26 podcasts. Enough so that when you were denied, you decided to hold a trail in the court of public opinion

Is there a Paul Harvey moment coming?

2.8k · March 30, 2013

Perhaps you should respond to any of his logical points like why he, or I can point my cache page to a wikipedia article about, morse code for example but pointing it to a wiki article containing adult language such as the many pages *ABOUT* curse and swear world on wikipedia would not be allowed EVEN though I am sure that with six or seven clicks I can navigate on wikipedia from the morse code page to the page about a four letter word starting with F.

With a few clicks I can navigate from any URL to one that contains offensive material. Some seemingly harmless searches will bring me to adult material. However, the issue here, I think, is that the cacher is brought directly to the material the GS deems non-family friendly in order to solve the puzzle cache.

5k · March 30, 2013

Perhaps you should respond to any of his logical points like why he, or I can point my cache page to a wikipedia article about, morse code for example but pointing it to a wiki article containing adult language such as the many pages *ABOUT* curse and swear world on wikipedia would not be allowed EVEN though I am sure that with six or seven clicks I can navigate on wikipedia from the morse code page to the page about a four letter word starting with F.

With a few clicks I can navigate from any URL to one that contains offensive material. Some seemingly harmless searches will bring me to adult material. However, the issue here, I think, is that the cacher is brought directly to the material the GS deems non-family friendly in order to solve the puzzle cache.

The intention is to go to the offensive site and listen to 26 offensive podcasts, not browse the entire Internet until you find something offensive.

March 30, 2013

It would seem that the real problem here is a definition of 'family-friendly'. Some seem to think it means 'children are allowed' (i.e. all the pointing at events in pubs and bars), but I usually take family-friendly' to mean 'non-offensive to a family'. Intentional or inadvertent exposure to something deemed socially undesirable, especially for children (profanity, violence, etc), is not family friendly, especially if there is no way to foresee it or avoid it (i.e. cache pages and links). Just a thought.

I did think about that. My initial puzzle included neither the web address nor the name of the podcast in question. Part of the challenge was to figure out which podcast had the answers to the quiz questions.

My cache page had a prominent warning about the podcast's crude language, advised parental discretion, and displayed a "Not Kid Friendly" attribute. If one found the podcast's homepage, then there was another warning about "explicit lyrics" and it would require another click to actually hear the audio that contained the crude language.

Someone would have to deliberately seek out these audio files in order to be offended by them.

I understand that you put a warning on the page and that is good. But everything you say shows that you do understand that this is material of a potentially offensive nature to some people, and you do understand that in order to solve the puzzle, people will likely come in contact with that material whether they want to or not. That falls directly in the center of the point I made about "intentional or inadvertent exposure to something deemed socially undesirable". Posting a warning does not mitigate that fact.

If the audio file in question is indeed non-offensive to the general public, find a way for the general public to get to it without wading through the muck. If that reduces the difficulty of the puzzle, then reduce the difficulty rating.

Like I said, this issue hinges on the definition of 'family-friendly', for which 'non-offensive to the general public' is a pretty good rule of the thumb. It has little to do with whether or not children are allowed. With a little thinking, you can come up with a whole list of family friendly activities that have restrictions on children (amusement parks are a good example).

And, of course, all of this is moot if you don't also address the commercial issue.

I'm sure all of this is unfortunately something you don't want to hear, but go back and look over all the responses. Consensus of this sort rarely happens in forums like this.

3k · March 30, 2013

Surely the trivia answers needed could be found elsewhere than the podcast in question? If not, they probably aren't good questions anyway.

Regarding the puzzle cache that requires watching "saw": couldn't the needed info be derived from a plot summary and/or trivia page about the film? So watching it is not actually neccessary.

March 30, 2013

Surely the trivia answers needed could be found elsewhere than the podcast in question? If not, they probably aren't good questions anyway.

Regarding the puzzle cache that requires watching "saw": couldn't the needed info be derived from a plot summary and/or trivia page about the film? So watching it is not actually neccessary.

No-they are very subtle things and things on the screen-take the number of weeks that the man in the razor wire had been dead when the police found him and add it to the age that Adam was when he was stabbed by a rusty nail. Thinks of this nature. Or how many cigarettes were in the ash tray of the person's car who had this done to them. What is the time on the clock when x happens

Just reading the questions gave me nightmares, but then I'm a boringgirl.

3.1k · March 30, 2013

Your reviewer found your cache listing offensive. You appealed and Groundspeak agreed with the reviewer. It's pretty much the end of the story.

Not really, for a couple reasons.

First, by raising these questions in the forums, I hoped to gain a better understanding about what is or is not allowed under Groundspeak's family-friendly policy. (There doesn't appear to be an actual guideline.)

A Help Center article states, "Cache pages should be family friendly." But Volunteer Reviewers seem to have varying views about whether that means events can be held in bars that exclude minors, whether caches can be hidden at clothing-optional locations or near adult stores, and even whether cache pages can refer to the particular podcast in question.

I find it interesting that Groundspeak appears to consider violence to be family friendly and has published puzzles that refer to the movie Saw and the video game World of Warcraft.

Second, by raising these issues in these forums, I've received some constructive suggestions for how I might retool my cache if I opt to resubmit it. For that, I'm very grateful.

Additionally, you seem to want to stay away from discussion of the commercial aspects.

See Post #3, where I said, "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." Even with a focus on Groundspeak's family-friendly policy, there seems to be plenty of things to discuss in this thread.

I'm really curious why you want people to visit this particular site and listen to 26 podcasts. Enough so that when you were denied, you decided to hold a trail in the court of public opinion

No trial here, just a fairly civil discussion. Isn't that what the forums are for?

I don't care if people listen to this particular podcast. I listen to it because I enjoy learning about how geocaching is done differently in another region, enjoy the hosts' philosophical discussions about geocaching ethics, and enjoy some of the humorous banter. I don't really care one way or the other about the crude language.

I put together a puzzle that I consider to be fun (and a little funny). Some geocachers might enjoy it; some might not. Just like plenty of other caches out there.

I've created several caches that I didn't expect to receive lots of visitors.

One of my Challenge Caches (GC351F5) has been out there for a couple years without any finds yet. But I consider it to be a fun challenge, and several other geocachers have indicated that they do, too.

One of my puzzle caches (GC21YFJ) was out there for over four years. It was very difficult, and most of the 19 finders worked in teams to solve the puzzle. Most of them seemed to enjoy the experience, and I certainly had fun creating the puzzle.

Not every cache has to appeal to a wide group of people.

Is there a Paul Harvey moment coming?

I don't think so.

In Post #1, I provided my cache's GC Code and the Appeal ID number "for any reviewers who want to check on 'the other side of the story.'"

In Post #3, briansnat indicated that he had read those notes. If there was a "rest of the story," then I think we would have heard about it already.

Edited March 30, 2013 by CanadianRockies

3.1k · March 30, 2013

I understand that you put a warning on the page and that is good. But everything you say shows that you do understand that this is material of a potentially offensive nature to some people, and you do understand that in order to solve the puzzle, people will likely come in contact with that material whether they want to or not. That falls directly in the center of the point I made about "intentional or inadvertent exposure to something deemed socially undesirable". Posting a warning does not mitigate that fact.

I understand Groundspeak wants its website to be family friendly because they have a Help Center article that states, "Cache pages should be family friendly." But I have yet to see any guideline or Help Center article that goes beyond a family-friendly cache page.

Some caches take people to clothing-optional locations. But if the family-friendly cache page warns them that they might encounter nudity at these sites, then I think people are smart enough to make decisions about whether they (and their children) should search for that cache. Some won't go. Some will go by themselves. Some might bring their children. All's good.

Some cache puzzles rely on violent media, such as the movie Saw or the video game World of Warcraft. As long as the cache pages warn people about that, then I have no problems with such caches.

I also have no problem with caches that involve potentially dangerous climbs up tall trees or rappels down cliffs. Alert people to potentially dangerous or offensive issues, and let individuals make their own choices. Seems reasonable to me.

21.9k · March 30, 2013

Non-family-friendly caches

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