People admitting doing illegal things at other sites

[+ByronForestPreserve]

So let's imagine I found a geocaching discussion thread at some other site. In it, someone says upfront that they are hiding a cache in an illegal and dangerous location (abandoned building on private property, no permission, where cachers will have to climb a wall of the building to get to the cache). Out of curiosity I might have searched geocaching.com for that username and found it, and it sounds like it's the right location as mentioned at the other site.

 

Most of the responses were "Oh, go ahead and hide it; the reviewer will never know." To the few that said it wasn't a good idea, the poster responded that if he doesn't hide caches on private property without permission, he won't have anywhere to hide them.

 

I don't want to be cache police, and it's not my responsibility, but. Think the reviewer will give it a pass?

[+Walts Hunting]

Unless you personally go to the cache site and see the problem you should go about your business. Getting involved when someone makes a statement on a forum that may or may not be the truth (people have been known to say things that are untrue to get attention) is above the call of duty. If the finders of the cache don't complain there is no problem.

[+cerberus1]

Many of us are members or lurk on other sites.

I'm sure a few reviewers use them once in awhile to keep track too.

If they don't notice, someone may eventually give the spot away and maybe add an NA.

[+The A-Team]

I don't want to be cache police, and it's not my responsibility, but. Think the reviewer will give it a pass?

I'm not sure what other people will say, but I say it is our responsibility. People doing things like what you describe will eventually ruin things for everyone else.

Whether or not the reviewer will publish it will depend on how much information the CO gives, but if they're really serious about getting it published, they'll likely put very little information in the listing.

 

I say look up a reviewer in that area and pass along the information. I did so in a similar situation a few months ago and got a huge thank you from the reviewer for bringing it to their attention.

 

Also keep in mind that safety isn't a factor in reviewing a cache for publication. Based on what you've written here, the only problem with the cache would be the illegal/private property/no permission angle.

 

...and if the hider thinks they have to do this to place caches, they shouldn't be placing caches. This game will be better off without them.

[+NeverSummer]

We each are the cache police. However, we shouldn't "police" based on what we think is going on. Meaning, only do something about it if you, yourself have been to the cache site and can note the possible guideline violations in your log and/or photos of the site.

 

For example, if I think a cache is on private property, I shouldn't post a NA log without having been to the site to look it over myself. But if, when I arrive, it is clear that the cache violates the guidelines, I would note the issue in my log, and post a NA. (NA, because a guideline violation should go to the attention of the local Reviewer.)

[+ByronForestPreserve]

I don't want to be cache police, and it's not my responsibility, but. Think the reviewer will give it a pass?

I'm not sure what other people will say, but I say it is our responsibility. People doing things like what you describe will eventually ruin things for everyone else.

Whether or not the reviewer will publish it will depend on how much information the CO gives, but if they're really serious about getting it published, they'll likely put very little information in the listing.

 

I say look up a reviewer in that area and pass along the information. I did so in a similar situation a few months ago and got a huge thank you from the reviewer for bringing it to their attention.

 

Also keep in mind that safety isn't a factor in reviewing a cache for publication. Based on what you've written here, the only problem with the cache would be the illegal/private property/no permission angle.

 

...and if the hider thinks they have to do this to place caches, they shouldn't be placing caches. This game will be better off without them.

 

You know, as soon as I posted this I did look up the reviewer and sent a link to the post, because I thought it would nag me if I didn't. I'll leave it up to him/her to decide on it. I know hope that anyone who found it would post a NA log, but they'd (rightly) assume that the CO had permission to hide on private property and might not give it a second thought. In fact, no one might until something bad happened...hopefully something tame like being told to leave, and not a more extreme encounter of an angry property owner with a gun.

 

I'm as curious to hear about reviewers checking up on things like that as the "what would you do" discussion itself. I hear reviewers can have awesome, mad skills.

 

As for safety, in this case, the CO has no idea if there are issues at the site as he hasn't spoken to the property owner. Abandoned buildings are one thing, but there could easily be something dangerous about the site he isn't aware of.

 

...basically every place that isn't privately owned is government owned. Excluding those we are basically left with public parks. I thought geocaching was for interesting adventures, but judging by these responses and the caches in my area of [____], it's usually quite lame.

 

I agree he needs a different hobby.

[+The_Incredibles_]

It sounds like you're not 100% sure. If you can, I would visit the site in question, take photos and email them to the reviewer. If you can't visit in person, I think it's still OK to email the reviewer with what you do know and let them decide. Just be clear that you haven't been to GZ yourself.

[+The A-Team]

ByronForestPreserve: After reading your posts again, it isn't crystal clear whether the cache in question has been published or not. Can you confirm what its status is? My earlier response was on the assumption that it wasn't yet published, and my answer may vary slightly if the cache is already published. Several of the responses here have been based on the cache already being published (those regarding visiting the location).

[Clan Riffster]

For me, the answer lies somewhere in the middle ground of what I've read here in this thread.

I happen to love this hobby, and I hope to see it continue well into the future. In my opinion, one way to ensure that happens is to respect property owners and property managers. Try to view the game from their perspective, and don't do things that they would look upon with disfavor. I believe so strongly in this, that, if questions arise in a public setting, such as a discussion on a forum or a social networking site, I have no problem expressing my views on the matter.

 

That being said, I would be very reluctant to take action against such a cache. One of my long standing rules is to not post anything negative, such as an NA or an NM, unless I actually visit the cache site, and can make an accurate report on conditions, without having to rely on second hand information. Though, in this case, it's not really second hand information, since it's the cache owner themselves posting that they were up to shenanigans with one of their hides. Perhaps a discrete note to the Reviewer would be in order!

[+ByronForestPreserve]

ByronForestPreserve: After reading your posts again, it isn't crystal clear whether the cache in question has been published or not. Can you confirm what its status is? My earlier response was on the assumption that it wasn't yet published, and my answer may vary slightly if the cache is already published. Several of the responses here have been based on the cache already being published (those regarding visiting the location).

 

It has not been published yet. The poster replies to a comment with something along the lines of it having been two days (since he submitted the cache for review), but that it's busy season for reviewers and he hopes it gets published soon.

 

If it were already published, would you be more likely to leave it to the local cachers? I don't think I would have necessarily sent the link to a reviewer in that case...

 

*shrugs* Maybe the reviewer does know the area and refused to publish it.

[+ByronForestPreserve]

It sounds like you're not 100% sure. If you can, I would visit the site in question, take photos and email them to the reviewer. If you can't visit in person, I think it's still OK to email the reviewer with what you do know and let them decide. Just be clear that you haven't been to GZ yourself.

 

In my note to the reviewer, I merely included a link to the post and said that he or she seemed to be the local reviewer and that she might find the discussion relevant. At the very least, I'd guess she'd post a reviewer note asking the CO if he does have permission. If he lies about it...well, not much to be done, I guess.

 

I also felt that if I were a reviewer, I'd want to know that kind of thing. But not being a reviewer, I don't know how it would be handled. If the CO publicly said he didn't have permission, then told the reviewer that he did...tough call. I'd guess they have to make decisions like that every once in a while.

[+T.D.M.22]

So let's imagine I found a geocaching discussion thread at some other site. In it, someone says upfront that they are hiding a cache in an illegal and dangerous location (abandoned building on private property, no permission, where cachers will have to climb a wall of the building to get to the cache).

 

No permission-Like it's the first cache without explicit permission.

 

Regarding dangerous locations-That's up to the cacher to decide. A SCUBA cache, or climbing cache could be dangerous, but if you have the right equipment it's perfectly safe. At the same time a cache in bush in a playground could be deadly to someone who is allergic to that plant. It's up to you to go for it.

 

Unless you have actually visited the cache you do not know for sure, and shouldn't say anything-it could turn out the the cache may have been moved to say a location reachable from the sidewalk.

 

And just to bring this up-abandoned property may become property of the municipality/county if abandoned long enough, and might be considered public property just like a park-unless of course there are no trespassing signs or something similar.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Assuming I was not local to the cache, I would alert the local Reviewer with a link to the pertinent discussion and leave it in their hands.

[AZcachemeister]

I don't want to be cache police, and it's not my responsibility, but. Think the reviewer will give it a pass?

I'm not sure what other people will say, but I say it is our responsibility. People doing things like what you describe will eventually ruin things for everyone else.

Whether or not the reviewer will publish it will depend on how much information the CO gives, but if they're really serious about getting it published, they'll likely put very little information in the listing.

 

I say look up a reviewer in that area and pass along the information. I did so in a similar situation a few months ago and got a huge thank you from the reviewer for bringing it to their attention.

 

Also keep in mind that safety isn't a factor in reviewing a cache for publication. Based on what you've written here, the only problem with the cache would be the illegal/private property/no permission angle.

 

...and if the hider thinks they have to do this to place caches, they shouldn't be placing caches. This game will be better off without them.

 

If we do not police our own activity, someone else will (eventually) do it for us.

 

Those who would try to 'slip one past the reviewer' will only cause problems for ALL of the rest of us.

 

ANY such information should be passed on to the local reviewer, so the reviewer can deal with the situation without being blind-sided by someone's dirty tricks.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Out of curiosity I might have searched geocaching.com for that username and found it, and it sounds like it's the right location as mentioned at the other site.

Still don't get the bolded part if it hasn't been published.

[+The A-Team]

Out of curiosity I might have searched geocaching.com for that username and found it, and it sounds like it's the right location as mentioned at the other site.

Still don't get the bolded part if it hasn't been published.

It took me a few reads to figure it out too, but I think they meant the listed home location of the geocaching.com username matched that of the forum poster. They're not referring to the cache location.

At least, that's how I read it.

[+captnemo]

I don't want to be cache police, and it's not my responsibility, but. Think the reviewer will give it a pass?

I'm not sure what other people will say, but I say it is our responsibility. People doing things like what you describe will eventually ruin things for everyone else.

Whether or not the reviewer will publish it will depend on how much information the CO gives, but if they're really serious about getting it published, they'll likely put very little information in the listing.

 

I say look up a reviewer in that area and pass along the information. I did so in a similar situation a few months ago and got a huge thank you from the reviewer for bringing it to their attention.

 

Also keep in mind that safety isn't a factor in reviewing a cache for publication. Based on what you've written here, the only problem with the cache would be the illegal/private property/no permission angle.

 

...and if the hider thinks they have to do this to place caches, they shouldn't be placing caches. This game will be better off without them.

 

If we do not police our own activity, someone else will (eventually) do it for us.

 

Those who would try to 'slip one past the reviewer' will only cause problems for ALL of the rest of us.

 

ANY such information should be passed on to the local reviewer, so the reviewer can deal with the situation without being blind-sided by someone's dirty tricks.

+1

[+ByronForestPreserve]

Out of curiosity I might have searched geocaching.com for that username and found it, and it sounds like it's the right location as mentioned at the other site.

Still don't get the bolded part if it hasn't been published.

It took me a few reads to figure it out too, but I think they meant the listed home location of the geocaching.com username matched that of the forum poster. They're not referring to the cache location.

At least, that's how I read it.

 

Yep. Poster mentioned two locations about 1,500 miles apart, and geocaching profile shows exactly one find in each of those places.

[Zerpersande]

I don't want to be cache police, and it's not my responsibility, but. Think the reviewer will give it a pass?

 

Then don't be the cache police. You will get all sorts of answers on this though. I knocked down a wasp nest with a single wasp on it because it was within 10cm of a almost 'blind grab' cache. People can die from this. Tree huggers went nuts about killing wasps. Well, I moved the cache 50cm, made a note on my entry and informed the owner that the situation should at least be put at the beginning of his rambling description of this oh so interesting cache under an I-beam at a large train station. Nothing. So I knocked the nest down and replaced the cache. But I felt somebody was in danger.

 

Illegal? From what you describe, I think 'against the rules' is a closer description, but I'd just give it a pass.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I don't want to be cache police, and it's not my responsibility, but. Think the reviewer will give it a pass?

 

Illegal? From what you describe, I think 'against the rules' is a closer description, but I'd just give it a pass.

 

If on private property without permission that is trespassing isn't it? Tresspassing is illegal.

[+wimseyguy]

I don't see any problems with dropping a quick note to the reviewer letting him know what you observed, and being done with the situation. What they decide to do with that information afterwards is up to them.

[4wheelin_fool]

There is nothing wrong with it being dangerous, but if it requires illegal access also it could result in all kinds of restrictions if someone gets injured. When the police/EMTs get called to assist and find out that it was part of a game where people do not obey laws, it risks most of the legal ones getting banned. The term "cache police" is fairly offensive, as it applies, and also is derogatory, to the reviewers who are only volunteering their time selflessly to make sure the game doesn't get banned.

 

However in this case it is difficult to tell how bad it is without seeing it. I would probably play devil's advocate, and tell them it was a great idea to see if you could get them to admit to any more illegal activity. On another non-geocaching site I noticed there are a few who have mentioned stripping copper pipes and wiring from abandoned buildings, and who are prime suspects for being meth users. They often get caught from bragging about it. This cacher may be attempting to bring others to the area as a way to have a handy excuse for being there while doing something much more illegal.

[+Walts Hunting]

I don't see any problems with dropping a quick note to the reviewer letting him know what you observed, and being done with the situation. What they decide to do with that information afterwards is up to them.

 

The problem i see is that he didn't observe anything. He hasn't been there and his only info is what he saw on a forum. That is more enough knowledge to me running around like chicken little

[+T.D.M.22]

 

If on private property without permission that is trespassing isn't it? Tresspassing is illegal.

 

Just being on private property does not equal trespassing.

Your results may vary, but where I am from the law is as follows; (Lets use an open field and assume no one asked to enter the property) If it is completely open- no fence, no wall or any other barrier. No signs. You could drive a truck through the field if you felt like it-that's not trespassing. A fence with closed/locked gate- trespassing. A fence with an open gate/obvious entrance such as driveway or path-will depend on other factors. No fence but signs at every corner, and at obvious entrances(like a driveway or path) it is trespassing.

 

SO it would depend on the situation. Also some law enforcement may see that one person assumed they are allowed to be on the property and not charge them(first time anyway) This means that if you can say that a geocache must have permission and you go find the cache and you end up getting caught you can say that you had assumed there was permission and get away with it-only for first time though.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't see any problems with dropping a quick note to the reviewer letting him know what you observed, and being done with the situation. What they decide to do with that information afterwards is up to them.

 

The problem i see is that he didn't observe anything. He hasn't been there and his only info is what he saw on a forum. That is more enough knowledge to me running around like chicken little

 

That is more than enough probable cause to let a reviewer know about it.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

If on private property without permission that is trespassing isn't it? Tresspassing is illegal.

 

Just being on private property does not equal trespassing.

Your results may vary, but where I am from the law is as follows; (Lets use an open field and assume no one asked to enter the property) If it is completely open- no fence, no wall or any other barrier. No signs. You could drive a truck through the field if you felt like it-that's not trespassing. A fence with closed/locked gate- trespassing. A fence with an open gate/obvious entrance such as driveway or path-will depend on other factors. No fence but signs at every corner, and at obvious entrances(like a driveway or path) it is trespassing.

 

SO it would depend on the situation. Also some law enforcement may see that one person assumed they are allowed to be on the property and not charge them(first time anyway) This means that if you can say that a geocache must have permission and you go find the cache and you end up getting caught you can say that you had assumed there was permission and get away with it-only for first time though.

 

It sounds like the cache hider is well aware that it is private. Using faulty logic about how much they can prove, or what may occur often leads to provocations like the kid in California who was shot in the leg while looking for a cache on private property.

It only takes one bad hide to cause law enforcement to have a dim view about the entire sport. There are already plenty of hides like that which exist already. One more only increases the chances of hitting the county or state bannation lottery.

[+Snoogans]

So let's imagine I found a geocaching discussion thread at some other site. In it, someone says upfront that they are hiding a cache in an illegal and dangerous location (abandoned building on private property, no permission, where cachers will have to climb a wall of the building to get to the cache). Out of curiosity I might have searched geocaching.com for that username and found it, and it sounds like it's the right location as mentioned at the other site.

 

Most of the responses were "Oh, go ahead and hide it; the reviewer will never know." To the few that said it wasn't a good idea, the poster responded that if he doesn't hide caches on private property without permission, he won't have anywhere to hide them.

 

I don't want to be cache police, and it's not my responsibility, but. Think the reviewer will give it a pass?

 

There have been some very good and useful replies so far so I won't pile on with the same information.

 

Here is something to think about....

 

This community has a pervading don't ask, don't tell culture. Part of that stems from the clandestine nature of the activity.

 

When caches like this get hidden, there is an increased element of risk to the cacher who goes there unaware that the cache was intentionally hidden out of bounds per geocaching.com guidelines and possibly illegally as well. The hider then becomes more liable for what happens there as does the finder. One should really check their bank account to see how big a check they can write before embarking on such an endeavor.

 

In December of 2011 this community heard about the death of a 21yo cacher in Dresden, Germany. The situation was a perfect storm. The cache was hidden in an obviously verboten area. The hider could not possibly have obtained permission for this hide, but they posted it anyway. The hide passed review. There were 30+ finds posted with several near misses with a drop of 20+ feet that was within a few feet of the cache. The drop was because of a flaw/damage to the structure. To my knowledge no reports were made by the finders to get the cache taken offline. The cacher who died attempted the cache alone and at night. He told no one where he was going. He fell through the hole in the catwalk and suffered massive head trauma. He managed to crawl a few yards before succumbing to his wounds. A 21yo kid with his whole life ahead of him died for no reason at all. Every link in the chain failed. This should not have happened and would not have happened if the don't ask, don't tell culture that we have here was not accepted and allowed to continue.

 

Had the death happened here in the USA, I believe there would have been a huge lawsuit with Groundspeak and the hider as codefendants. That nifty disclaimer on our cache pages that protects Groundspeak would have been put to the test. I'm no lawyer, but I think this one would have been un-winable and a discreet and costly settlement would have been brokered.

 

Bullet dodged...This time... I hope they learned from it... I did.

 

You did the right thing raising this question. We will never know when speaking up could save a life. I bet there are at least 40+ people in Dresden, Germany who wish they had spoken up about the cache where that young man died....

Edited April 11, 2013 by Snoogans

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Every link in the chain failed. This should not have happened and would not have happened if the don't ask, don't tell culture that we have here was not accepted and allowed to continue.

 

It also never would have happended if the finder had used a little common sense.

[+Snoogans]

Every link in the chain failed. This should not have happened and would not have happened if the don't ask, don't tell culture that we have here was not accepted and allowed to continue.

 

It also never would have happended if the finder had used a little common sense.

 

Not to speak ill of the dead, but that was implied.

 

I have looked into every geocaching death I could get info on before December 2011 and those that have happened since and that is usually the main if not the only factor in these geocaching related deaths other than natural causes.

 

The chain of events leading to the geocaching death in Dresden is significantly different.

[+cheech gang]

I feel another Groundhog Day moment coming on.

[+Snoogans]

I feel another Groundhog Day moment coming on.

 

Nah. I think I'm done.

[+Legochugglers]

So let's imagine I found a geocaching discussion thread at some other site. In it, someone says upfront that they are hiding a cache in an illegal and dangerous location (abandoned building on private property, no permission, where cachers will have to climb a wall of the building to get to the cache). Out of curiosity I might have searched geocaching.com for that username and found it, and it sounds like it's the right location as mentioned at the other site.

 

Most of the responses were "Oh, go ahead and hide it; the reviewer will never know." To the few that said it wasn't a good idea, the poster responded that if he doesn't hide caches on private property without permission, he won't have anywhere to hide them.

 

I don't want to be cache police, and it's not my responsibility, but. Think the reviewer will give it a pass?

 

There have been some very good and useful replies so far so I won't pile on with the same information.

 

Here is something to think about....

 

This community has a pervading don't ask, don't tell culture. Part of that stems from the clandestine nature of the activity.

 

When caches like this get hidden, there is an increased element of risk to the cacher who goes there unaware that the cache was intentionally hidden out of bounds per geocaching.com guidelines and possibly illegally as well. The hider then becomes more liable for what happens there as does the finder. One should really check their bank account to see how big a check they can write before embarking on such an endeavor.

 

In December of 2011 this community heard about the death of a 21yo cacher in Dresden, Germany. The situation was a perfect storm. The cache was hidden in an obviously verboten area. The hider could not possibly have obtained permission for this hide, but they posted it anyway. The hide passed review. There were 30+ finds posted with several near misses with a drop of 20+ feet that was within a few feet of the cache. The drop was because of a flaw/damage to the structure. To my knowledge no reports were made by the finders to get the cache taken offline. The cacher who died attempted the cache alone and at night. He told no one where he was going. He fell through the hole in the catwalk and suffered massive head trauma. He managed to crawl a few yards before succumbing to his wounds. A 21yo kid with his whole life ahead of him died for no reason at all. Every link in the chain failed. This should not have happened and would not have happened if the don't ask, don't tell culture that we have here was not accepted and allowed to continue.

 

Had the death happened here in the USA, I believe there would have been a huge lawsuit with Groundspeak and the hider as codefendants. That nifty disclaimer on our cache pages that protects Groundspeak would have been put to the test. I'm no lawyer, but I think this one would have been un-winable and a discreet and costly settlement would have been brokered.

 

Bullet dodged...This time... I hope they learned from it... I did.

 

You did the right thing raising this question. We will never know when speaking up could save a life. I bet there are at least 40+ people in Dresden, Germany who wish they had spoken up about the cache where that young man died....

I also followed the above story with intrigue and horror. There were also some further related threads that ran concurrently. One worrying detail ran through all the responses and that was an underlying culture to find as many ways to breach boundaries, hide caches illegally and challenge other like minded searchers with the stakes getting more and more out of control. This was not helped by an element of the geocaching community in Germany actively hounding any cachers that challenged the legality of certain hides.

Be vigilant and don't be afraid to report what you know to be illegal.

[+ByronForestPreserve]

The term "cache police" is fairly offensive, as it applies, and also is derogatory, to the reviewers who are only volunteering their time selflessly to make sure the game doesn't get banned.

Nothing meant disrespectfully toward reviewers at all. I meant in this case, having found information at an unrelated site, my own responsibility to "police" someone's actions, or influence the outcome.

 

The story about the young man's death is terrible. Part of my worry was that anyone seeking the cache would assume that permission had been granted, which, in my mind, includes safety concerns. If a property owner gives permission to hide a cache in an abandoned building, he or she is taking some responsibility in deciding that the area is safe from hazards that someone--no matter how much common sense they have--might not know about. That is the attitude I would take approaching a cache like that...that if there were hidden dangers, the property owner wouldn't have let the CO hide a cache there in the first place. BUT that isn't the case, and could be completely misleading to anyone entering the property.

 

There is a legal difference between accidents and negligence--the latter generally implies that someone wasn't following standard practices--in this case, checking with the property owner that conditions are safe enough to allow people to wander in and even climb the structure.

 

But in regard to the issue of "private" property and trespassing...a quick Google search tells me that trespassing is at its simplest "entering another person's property without permission of the owner." I don't see a requirement that barriers or signs be in place. Certainly there's always been ongoing discussion about parking lots and roadside caches, but I'm thinking that there's not much gray area about an abandoned building in a patch of woods, even if we don't know exactly who the owner is.

[4wheelin_fool]

I feel another Groundhog Day moment coming on.

 

What if there is no tommorrow? There wasn't one today.

[+wimseyguy]

I don't see any problems with dropping a quick note to the reviewer letting him know what you observed, and being done with the situation. What they decide to do with that information afterwards is up to them.

 

The problem i see is that he didn't observe anything. He hasn't been there and his only info is what he saw on a forum. That is more enough knowledge to me running around like chicken little

I don't quite follow your last sentence. But I still don't see any harm in contacting a local reviewer, and letting them know you saw some chatter on another discussion forum or FB group. I think most reviewers will recognize that this isn't direct evidence of wrong doing, but might be interested in seeing where that discussion leads. And if it leads to preventing someone from getting in trouble, then that is a good thing. Or it might lead to nothing at all.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't see any problems with dropping a quick note to the reviewer letting him know what you observed, and being done with the situation. What they decide to do with that information afterwards is up to them.

 

The problem i see is that he didn't observe anything. He hasn't been there and his only info is what he saw on a forum. That is more enough knowledge to me running around like chicken little

Strictly speaking, he did observe something. Specifically, a cache owner making statements about their own cache.

 

For instance, say I'm perusing about a geocaching Faceybook site, and I see BillyBobNosePicker opining that BilliJoButtScratcher has a cache, hundreds of miles away from me, that may require illegal access. Unless I go to the cache in question, my level of involvement will be zero. I'm not a fan of taking action on third party opinions.

 

But if BillyBobNosePicker posted on the same Faceybook group that his newest cache does indeed require illegal access, my reaction might be significantly different.

 

In neither case would I post anything to the cache page.

 

But in the latter example, a note to the Reviewer might be warranted.

[+JKMonkey]

I'm sure someone will report it once they realize that its hard to get to and in an unsuitable location.