Listing Guidelines

[+Anteaus]

I heard about a series of caches that were hidden in another state that to complete, and get the bonus cache, you had to find caches published on other caching sites. The cache description for the one posted on GC does not mention any other sites, he just tells you to contact him for more information if you need help discovering the other caches in the series. He never mentions the other sites on his listing, however, I can't find anything in the guidelines that says you can't mention them. Can someone point out to me where it says you can't mention another caching site in your listings?

[Keystone]

Quotes from the listing guidelines:

 

"Cache listings that require a cacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website."

 

"Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

 

It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

It contains links to businesses, agencies, commercial advertisers, charities, or political or social agendas.

It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

It contains the name of a business or commercial product."

 

"Mystery/Puzzle Caches

 

The information needed to solve this type cache must be available to the general community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page."

 

If you submit a cache naming another listing site, your reviewer should ask you to remove that feature. If you modify your cache post-publication to add such information, you risk archival of the listing.

 

"I've got a secret" puzzles like the one described in the OP led to the addition of the following guideline:

 

"Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved."

 

If the cache owner was dishonest in their explanation, expect swift archival of the listing.

[4wheelin_fool]

Can you point out which caches these are?

[Keystone]

Can you point out which caches these are?

That would probably be a bad idea, unless it's the OP's objective to seek the archival of the caches that depend on listings at other websites.

[4wheelin_fool]

Can you point out which caches these are?

That would probably be a bad idea, unless it's the OP's objective to seek the archival of the caches that depend on listings at other websites.

 

So they are against the guidelines and were probably modified after publishing to skirt the rules, but the OP should not say which ones they are to protect the guilty and to keep them from being archived?

[Keystone]

The OP begins with the words "I heard about..." Archiving the cache described would be handled best by people directly involved - those who wanted to search for the bonus cache but learned about the hidden requirement, the cache owner, and the reviewer who published the cache. Forum threads are often not well-suited to this task.

[4wheelin_fool]

Ok.

[+bflentje]

Can you point out which caches these are?

That would probably be a bad idea, unless it's the OP's objective to seek the archival of the caches that depend on listings at other websites.

 

I never understood the incessant need to call out every detail of every dirty little pile of laundry, just to make someone else look bad.

[4wheelin_fool]

Can you point out which caches these are?

That would probably be a bad idea, unless it's the OP's objective to seek the archival of the caches that depend on listings at other websites.

 

I never understood the incessant need to call out every detail of every dirty little pile of laundry, just to make someone else look bad.

 

It's not to make anyone look bad, rather it's to clarify what exactly is occurring.

 

The cache description for the one posted on GC does not mention any other sites, he just tells you to contact him for more information if you need help discovering the other caches in the series.

 

It sounds like the CO is intentionally being deceptive to their reviewer, but you never can tell if the OP has their story straight. He did not contact the CO, and heard about it secondhand. What's viewable on the cache page is available to the public. If they do not wish to make themselves look bad, they should watch what they put there.

 

and rather than using the cache page as a forum, it's brought up here...

 

It looks like it should be archived. But if Keystone is taking care of it then that's fine.

[+Anteaus]

Quotes from the listing guidelines:

 

"Cache listings that require a cacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website."

 

"Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

 

It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

It contains links to businesses, agencies, commercial advertisers, charities, or political or social agendas.

It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

It contains the name of a business or commercial product."

 

"Mystery/Puzzle Caches

 

The information needed to solve this type cache must be available to the general community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page."

 

If you submit a cache naming another listing site, your reviewer should ask you to remove that feature. If you modify your cache post-publication to add such information, you risk archival of the listing.

 

"I've got a secret" puzzles like the one described in the OP led to the addition of the following guideline:

 

"Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved."

 

If the cache owner was dishonest in their explanation, expect swift archival of the listing.

 

I am not going to provide the cache, it's not about whether or not he did something wrong, because he didn't do anything at all wrong in the cache listing. I was wrong in my original post, the CO never said anything about contacting him regarding the other caches, just to contact if anyone needed assistance. It's implied that there are other caches, but he doesn't mention them specifically. But what I want to know is, if the cache listing doesn't require you to go to another website to find the cache for this particular listing, but references other listing sites simply to mention the existence of the other caches, what's wrong with that (he doesn't do this, I just don't understand why he can't)? Going to the other listing sites is not required to find this particular cache, cachers are not being forced there to get the smiley. So, I guess he can't mention the existence of the other caches because "it contains the name of a business or commercial product"?

[+tozainamboku]

My first reaction was that one could conceivably do this without violation Geocaching.com guidelines.

 

Cache A, listed on Geocaching.com, has coordinates for cache B, listed on another site. It does not mention that the coordinates are for a cache listed on another site. Cache B has the coordinates for cache C which is listed as a mystery/unknow on Geocaching.com. In order to find this cache the page instructs you to go to cache A and use the hint to find cache C.

 

The problem with this scenario is it may run into the well hidden bonus cache guideline that bonus caches can't be chained. (Not really well hidden, but still outside of the normal guidelines location so most people don't know about it). The argument being that if cache B goes missing that cache C becomes "unfindable". I don't entirely agree with the rationale that has been given against chaining. However, when cache B is listed on a different website, cachers and reviewers would not have any way to see that it was disabled or missing for a long period. One could have a Mystery/Unknown cache that is essentially unfindable and short of bugging the owner there isn't much that could be done. This is one case where I agree with chaining rule.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Can you point out which caches these are?

That would probably be a bad idea, unless it's the OP's objective to seek the archival of the caches that depend on listings at other websites.

 

I never understood the incessant need to call out every detail of every dirty little pile of laundry, just to make someone else look bad.

 

Unless that someone is the geocaching community as a whole. While this particular series doesn't make the community look bad, calling out buried caches, caches which deface public or private property, or a cache placed on private property without permission *could* make the geocaching community look bad as a whole.

 

 

[+Isonzo Karst]

Because Groundspeak is not interested in having a listing published on Geocaching.com being used to promote other cache listing sites. Yes, such a mention fails the commercial section of the listing guidelines.

[+Don_J]

Quotes from the listing guidelines:

 

"Cache listings that require a cacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website."

 

"Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

 

It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

It contains links to businesses, agencies, commercial advertisers, charities, or political or social agendas.

It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

It contains the name of a business or commercial product."

 

"Mystery/Puzzle Caches

 

The information needed to solve this type cache must be available to the general community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page."

 

If you submit a cache naming another listing site, your reviewer should ask you to remove that feature. If you modify your cache post-publication to add such information, you risk archival of the listing.

 

"I've got a secret" puzzles like the one described in the OP led to the addition of the following guideline:

 

"Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved."

 

If the cache owner was dishonest in their explanation, expect swift archival of the listing.

 

I am not going to provide the cache, it's not about whether or not he did something wrong, because he didn't do anything at all wrong in the cache listing. I was wrong in my original post, the CO never said anything about contacting him regarding the other caches, just to contact if anyone needed assistance. It's implied that there are other caches, but he doesn't mention them specifically. But what I want to know is, if the cache listing doesn't require you to go to another website to find the cache for this particular listing, but references other listing sites simply to mention the existence of the other caches, what's wrong with that (he doesn't do this, I just don't understand why he can't)? Going to the other listing sites is not required to find this particular cache, cachers are not being forced there to get the smiley. So, I guess he can't mention the existence of the other caches because "it contains the name of a business or commercial product"?

 

It has to do with competition. Typically, if you need 10 2X4s, Home Depot doesn't send you to Lowes to buy half of them.

 

And, it's good that you didn't drop a GC code here to be used for forum fodder. Too many people like to play amateur reviewer when that happens.

 

If you have a guidelines concern about this particular cache that you think needs to be addressed, you can email the local reviewer for the area.

[+Don_J]

Can you point out which caches these are?

That would probably be a bad idea, unless it's the OP's objective to seek the archival of the caches that depend on listings at other websites.

 

I never understood the incessant need to call out every detail of every dirty little pile of laundry, just to make someone else look bad.

 

Unless that someone is the geocaching community as a whole. While this particular series doesn't make the community look bad, calling out buried caches, caches which deface public or private property, or a cache placed on private property without permission *could* make the geocaching community look bad as a whole.

 

All of these situations can be handled without broadcasting the GC code on the forum. Too many times when a particular cache comes under the microscope here, So called level headed forum members decide that they are going to fix it, instead of letting the reviewers handle it.

 

On the other hand, it does offer the best entertainment available on these forums.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Don_J

[+tozainamboku]

Unless that someone is the geocaching community as a whole. While this particular series doesn't make the community look bad, calling out buried caches, caches which deface public or private property, or a cache placed on private property without permission *could* make the geocaching community look bad as a whole.

 

All of these situations can be handled without broadcasting the GC code on the forum. Too many times when a particular cache comes under the microscope here, So called level headed forum members decide that they are going to fix it, instead of letting the reviewers handle it.

 

On the other hand, it does offer the best entertainment available on these forums.

In this case the OP was asking about what the listing guidelines have to say about this situation. If you take the example as a hypothetical cache rather than a real bonus caches that may or may not violate the guidelines, then this thread is really a discussions about the guidelines and not an attempt to get any particular cache archived.

 

The OP seems to want to know whether the guidelines prohibit the mention of the other sites. We've now had a couple of reviewers weigh in with their interpretation of the guidelines as they might apply. It should be fairly clear that you can't mention other geocaching site by name in your cache listing. Mentioning them in this forum can even get you banned.

 

Based on the description OP gives, the listings on GC.com do not mention the other site, so it's pretty clear that to get the caches published the CO took care to avoid the commercial guideline. The invitation to contact the cache owner for more information if you need help discovering the other caches in the series, might raise a red flag. But it isn't clear that the are any guidelines being violated. If, in fact the bonus does rely on finding caches listed elsewhere (or even caches not listed anywhere), there might be issues with other guidelines (such as the chaining of bonus caches or needing to register on the other sites). But not knowing the details, it would be hard to decide if there is violation or not.

Edited July 15, 2013 by tozainamboku

[+Anteaus]

I was interested to know why he couldn't mention the entire series in the cache description; it just seemed odd reading the listing, knowing there was more to it than what was being described. I was expecting to see it reference the other sites but it didn't. Now I know why. Thanks, y'all.

[+Anteaus]

 

If you submit a cache naming another listing site, your reviewer should ask you to remove that feature. If you modify your cache post-publication to add such information, you risk archival of the listing.

 

 

Okay... my original question has been answered, but now I wonder about the above statement. I didn't see in the guidelines anything about the above; nothing about other listing sites specifically, and more importantly nothing about automatically archiving a listing because of it. Shouldn't the reviewer simply instruct them to remove it before archiving it? I obviously don't know about the history behind some of the guidelines, so I'm guessing at some point this might have been a big problem?

[+cheech gang]

there might be issues with other guidelines (such as the chaining of bonus caches

 

I've seen this "chaining" prohibtion mentioned a couple of times but I have not yet been able to locate it in the guidelines. Help please. Thanks.

[+Isonzo Karst]

 

If you submit a cache naming another listing site, your reviewer should ask you to remove that feature. If you modify your cache post-publication to add such information, you risk archival of the listing.

 

 

Okay... my original question has been answered, but now I wonder about the above statement. I didn't see in the guidelines anything about the above; nothing about other listing sites specifically, and more importantly nothing about automatically archiving a listing because of it. Shouldn't the reviewer simply instruct them to remove it before archiving it? I obviously don't know about the history behind some of the guidelines, so I'm guessing at some point this might have been a big problem?

 

I think Keystone was speaking to the case where a cache owner was asked during review to remove the reference to another listing site, they did remove it, and then added it back later. This would probably = an archived listing.

 

cheech gang, "chaining" is mentioned in a Help Center article here - 1.14. Puzzle/Mystery/Unknown

 

A chain of caches, where one leads to the next to the next to the next is exactly equivalent to a multi-cache, and a reviewer might well request that it go out that way. That way, if one of the caches goes down, one listing is dead, not multiple listings downstream of the missing cache.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

cheech gang, "chaining" is mentioned in a Help Center article here - 1.14. Puzzle/Mystery/Unknown

 

A chain of caches, where one leads to the next to the next to the next is exactly equivalent to a multi-cache, and a reviewer might well request that it go out that way. That way, if one of the caches goes down, one listing is dead, not multiple listings downstream of the missing cache.

 

 

Hmmm...must be blind (or need coffee) as I am not seeing it. The only thing I see is no clues to a bonus cache inside a bonus cache.

[AZcachemeister]

 

Hmmm...must be blind (or need coffee) as I am not seeing it. The only thing I see is no clues to a bonus cache inside a bonus cache.

 

The 'bonus cache' would be considered a 'mystery' if the only way to find it was to find information in another cache and not from information on the cache page.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

Hmmm...must be blind (or need coffee) as I am not seeing it. The only thing I see is no clues to a bonus cache inside a bonus cache.

 

The 'bonus cache' would be considered a 'mystery' if the only way to find it was to find information in another cache and not from information on the cache page.

 

That I understand and see. I saw no mention of "chaining" as defined in Isonzo Karst's post as a chain of individual caches linking (or chaining) to the next one.

[+bflentje]

Can you point out which caches these are?

That would probably be a bad idea, unless it's the OP's objective to seek the archival of the caches that depend on listings at other websites.

 

I never understood the incessant need to call out every detail of every dirty little pile of laundry, just to make someone else look bad.

 

It's not to make anyone look bad, rather it's to clarify what exactly is occurring.

 

I call B.S.. In EVERY aspect of my life I interact with people who think they have some obligation to call out their fellow citizens for the LAMEST of things, all in the name of some LAME excuse. That could be political or non-political. But their real goal is to just tear people down and have them conform to whatever the agenda of the day is.

[+cheech gang]

I saw no mention of "chaining" as defined in Isonzo Karst's post as a chain of individual caches linking (or chaining) to the next one.

 

From the Help guidelines:

 

Bonus Caches Clues to the bonus cache location (often coordinates, or partial coordinates in several caches) are hidden in one or more other caches. Generally, clues for a bonus cache should not be placed in another bonus cache, and the bonus cache belongs to the owner of the caches where clues are found.

 

Once again the Groundspeak speak is nebulous, but this could be one interpretation:

 

A. sentence #1: caches a,b,c,d,e,f all have pieces of coords that lead to bonus puzzle cache g. OKAY

 

B. sentence #2: cache a contains full coordinates for bonus puzzle cache b. Okay

 

C. sentence #2: cache a has full coords for bonus puzzle cache b, cache b has full coords for bonus puzzle cache c. Not Okay. This is what I assume people are referring to as "chaining" although the word is not used in Groundspeak speak.

 

How am I doing? I put it into Google Translate and this is what came back.

Edited July 16, 2013 by cheech gang

[4wheelin_fool]

 

It's not to make anyone look bad, rather it's to clarify what exactly is occurring.

 

I call B.S.. In EVERY aspect of my life I interact with people who think they have some obligation to call out their fellow citizens for the LAMEST of things, all in the name of some LAME excuse. That could be political or non-political. But their real goal is to just tear people down and have them conform to whatever the agenda of the day is.

 

No, that was the entire reason.

 

However I've read enough of your forum posts to realize that you tend to get over excited about things which nobody else does. I think you need to calm down buttercups.

 

And I do realize that you feel you have a duty to call out your fellow citizens on the lamest of things...

Edited July 16, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I saw no mention of "chaining" as defined in Isonzo Karst's post as a chain of individual caches linking (or chaining) to the next one.

 

From the Help guidelines:

 

•Bonus Caches Clues to the bonus cache location (often coordinates, or partial coordinates in several caches) are hidden in one or more other caches. Generally, clues for a bonus cache should not be placed in another bonus cache, and the bonus cache belongs to the owner of the caches where clues are found.

 

Once again the Groundspeak speak is nebulous, but this could be one interpretation:

 

A. sentence #1: caches a,b,c,d,e,f all have pieces of coords that lead to bonus puzzle cache g. OKAY

 

B. sentence #2: cache a contains full coordinates for bonus puzzle cache b. Okay

 

C. sentence #2: cache a has full coords for bonus puzzle cache b, cache b has full coords for bonus puzzle cache c. Not Okay. This is what I assume people are referring to as "chaining" although the word is not used in Groundspeak speak.

 

How am I doing? I put it into Google Translate and this is what came back.

 

You are doing great. Like I said...I was low on coffee.

[+Don_J]

cheech gang, "chaining" is mentioned in a Help Center article here - 1.14. Puzzle/Mystery/Unknown

 

A chain of caches, where one leads to the next to the next to the next is exactly equivalent to a multi-cache, and a reviewer might well request that it go out that way. That way, if one of the caches goes down, one listing is dead, not multiple listings downstream of the missing cache.

 

 

Hmmm...must be blind (or need coffee) as I am not seeing it. The only thing I see is no clues to a bonus cache inside a bonus cache.

 

I don't see it either, but I have read the quoted text before.

 

Edit to add: Maybe I've read it on the forum and not in the actual guidelines?

Edited July 16, 2013 by Don_J

[+bflentje]

 

It's not to make anyone look bad, rather it's to clarify what exactly is occurring.

 

I call B.S.. In EVERY aspect of my life I interact with people who think they have some obligation to call out their fellow citizens for the LAMEST of things, all in the name of some LAME excuse. That could be political or non-political. But their real goal is to just tear people down and have them conform to whatever the agenda of the day is.

 

No, that was the entire reason.

 

However I've read enough of your forum posts to realize that you tend to get over excited about things which nobody else does. I think you need to calm down buttercups.

 

And I do realize that you feel you have a duty to call out your fellow citizens on the lamest of things...

 

That's the second time you've stated that line of crap. Perhaps you should go back and read your own post history. You truly seem to be the 4wheeling fool.

[+cheech gang]

 

It's not to make anyone look bad, rather it's to clarify what exactly is occurring.

 

I call B.S.. In EVERY aspect of my life I interact with people who think they have some obligation to call out their fellow citizens for the LAMEST of things, all in the name of some LAME excuse. That could be political or non-political. But their real goal is to just tear people down and have them conform to whatever the agenda of the day is.

 

No, that was the entire reason.

 

However I've read enough of your forum posts to realize that you tend to get over excited about things which nobody else does. I think you need to calm down buttercups.

 

And I do realize that you feel you have a duty to call out your fellow citizens on the lamest of things...

 

That's the second time you've stated that line of crap. Perhaps you should go back and read your own post history. You truly seem to be the 4wheeling fool.

 

Does anybody know where I can find the exact dimensions for an Ultimate Cage Fighting ring. I think one may be needed here soon.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

It's not to make anyone look bad, rather it's to clarify what exactly is occurring.

 

I call B.S.. In EVERY aspect of my life I interact with people who think they have some obligation to call out their fellow citizens for the LAMEST of things, all in the name of some LAME excuse. That could be political or non-political. But their real goal is to just tear people down and have them conform to whatever the agenda of the day is.

 

No, that was the entire reason.

 

However I've read enough of your forum posts to realize that you tend to get over excited about things which nobody else does. I think you need to calm down buttercups.

 

And I do realize that you feel you have a duty to call out your fellow citizens on the lamest of things...

 

That's the second time you've stated that line of crap. Perhaps you should go back and read your own post history. You truly seem to be the 4wheeling fool.

 

Does anybody know where I can find the exact dimensions for an Ultimate Cage Fighting ring. I think one may be needed here soon.

He truly feels the need to call out his fellow citizens in the lamest of things. I don't experience this in EVERY aspect of my life, so perhaps it has rubbed off on him.

[AZcachemeister]

 

From the Help guidelines:

 

•Bonus Caches Clues to the bonus cache location (often coordinates, or partial coordinates in several caches) are hidden in one or more other caches. Generally, clues for a bonus cache should not be placed in another bonus cache, and the bonus cache belongs to the owner of the caches where clues are found.

 

Once again the Groundspeak speak is nebulous, but this could be one interpretation:

 

A. sentence #1: caches a,b,c,d,e,f all have pieces of coords that lead to bonus puzzle cache g. OKAY

 

B. sentence #2: cache a contains full coordinates for bonus puzzle cache b. Okay

 

C. sentence #2: cache a has full coords for bonus puzzle cache b, cache b has full coords for bonus puzzle cache c. Not Okay. This is what I assume people are referring to as "chaining" although the word is not used in Groundspeak speak.

 

How am I doing? I put it into Google Translate and this is what came back.

 

Cage fighting issues aside...

 

That's the way I interpreted the guidelines.

 

Bonus caches are sketchy enough...bonus caches that depend on other bonus caches are not a good idea.