Reviewer

[jholly]

I still say the reviewers don't really have an advantage on traditionals as long as they are not pushing the publish button as they are putting the cache away after signing the blank log.

That's just silly.

 

What if a reviewer pushes the "Publish" button when they are parked 20 yards away from the cache location? What if a Reviewer Note provided detailed information about or a picture of the hide? What if a boat was required to reach the cache and the reviewer strapped a canoe on top of their vehicle before publishing the cache? What if a reviewer publishes caches only at times that are convenient for them to go geocaching?

 

I'm not saying that any of this actually happens. But I think it's silly to suggest that it's impossible for this to happen.

 

What if all the reviewers stopped publishing caches so they could not be accused of scamming the FTF game?

[+CanadianRockies]

I still say the reviewers don't really have an advantage on traditionals as long as they are not pushing the publish button as they are putting the cache away after signing the blank log.

That's just silly.

 

What if a reviewer pushes the "Publish" button when they are parked 20 yards away from the cache location? What if a Reviewer Note provided detailed information about or a picture of the hide? What if a boat was required to reach the cache and the reviewer strapped a canoe on top of their vehicle before publishing the cache? What if a reviewer publishes caches only at times that are convenient for them to go geocaching?

 

I'm not saying that any of this actually happens. But I think it's silly to suggest that it's impossible for this to happen.

What if all the reviewers stopped publishing caches so they could not be accused of scamming the FTF game?

I'd think that was silly, too.

[+dprovan]

I don't give a clam's patootie (love that phrase) about FTFs, and I certainly don't give a clam's patootie about reviewers trying for FTFs. Those folks work hard for low pay (actually, no pay), and I say more power to them. Good reviewers are pretty hard to come by, I would imagine (you couldn't pay me enough to take that job). Assuming they're also active geocachers, they deserve to participate in the game the same as all the rest of us, including going for FTF if they're so inclined.

This argument is like saying, "I don't care about modern art, and the guards at the art museum work really hard, so it's OK with me if some of the modern art disappears once in a while and shows up on their walls and no one can tell if they bought it or stole it."

 

What if a reviewer publishes caches only at times that are convenient for them to go geocaching?

This is the only real advantage that I see that a reviewer has. They control the time of publication .

I'm not sure why this is so often overlooked, but the reviewer has and must maintain a privileged relation with cache owners, and that may result in a cache owner telling the reviewer all manner of things about the hide that others would not know. If a reviewer regularly goes for FTFs, a CO may be reluctant to tell them details which are required for a full assessment of the cache.

 

What if all the reviewers stopped publishing caches so they could not be accused of scamming the FTF game?

By all appearances, reviewers don't seem to have a problem choosing reviewing over the FTF game to avoid being accused of scamming. Keystone, for example, just posted statistics showing he had 20 FTFs in his first year of caching before he was a reviewer, then 1 FTF per year on caches he published in his next 10 years of geocaching since he's been a reviewer. No one could accuse him of scamming FTFs with that record. Personally, I have no problem with a reviewer intentionally scamming the FTF game at that frequency if they feel like it and are honest about it, although my guess is that in Keystone's case, they were just incidental FTFs for which he really did have absolutely no advantage. In fact, I'd guess that about all reviewer FTFs since I don't know any reviewers that get a lot of FTFs. (But then, I studiously remain ignorant of which players are actually reviewers behind the scenes, so I wouldn't know, anyway.)

[+CanadianRockies]

What if a reviewer publishes caches only at times that are convenient for them to go geocaching?

This is the only real advantage that I see that a reviewer has. They control the time of publication .

Suppose I had a question about properly abiding by the guidelines and wrote a Reviewer Note that described in detail where and how I hid my 5-star difficulty cache. You wouldn't see that as a real advantage if the reviewer attempted an FTF for that cache?

 

I seriously doubt any reviewer would take advantage of that information, but I do think it could be a significant FTF advantage if they did.

 

So what. Geocaches are meant to be found and I hope reviewers can still enjoy finding caches after having to deal with the bickering that comes to them daily.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that reviewers shouldn't be allowed to find caches.

 

It might not matter to you if a reviewer took advantage of their position to get an FTF, but it might well matter to some FTF hounds. It might even matter to some non-FTF hounds who would consider such behavior to be unethical. The review process works best if there's a good level of trust between reviewers and cache hiders.

[+fbingha]

This all seems like a bunch of "what if??" unless the sock puppet who started this cares to show the cache(s) that got them upset.

 

I said the only advantage that a reviewer has is controlling the publication time. I should have included that publication time is the only advantage that a reviewer could use that wouldn't be unethical. I choose to assume reviewers wouldn't use any of the privileged information that might be available to them to find caches. I also assume reviewers are of the sort of cacher that wouldn't want to find a cache using information that isn't available to other cachers.

 

I still maintain that this is just the whinings and whispers of someone who sleeps with their phone next to their ear so they can roll out to GZ at 3am with slippers on. Unless someone wishes to call out a reviewer who is posting suspicious "I FOUND IT FIRST!" logs then this thread should just die.

[+CanadianRockies]

This all seems like a bunch of "what if??" unless the sock puppet who started this cares to show the cache(s) that got them upset.

What if Groundspeak feels it's important to proactively ponder potential problems rather than reactively clean up messes after they occur?

 

I'm not aware of any reviewer who took advantage of their position to get FTFs on multi-caches or puzzle caches, but I'm glad reviewers have a policy of generally refraining from doing so.

[Keystone]

As a practical matter, most reviewers find a quiet time or times during the day when they can process all their work at once, rather than returning to the work queue hourly. I've not looked at my own queue since lunchtime, and at breakfast before that when I published the stuff I reviewed late last night.

 

When I have ten more caches to look at, I cannot very well run out and grab a newly published one that's 15 miles from home. I still have a bunch of work left to do in the same session for caches 50, 100 and 150 miles from home. By the time I finish the rest of the work, the local FTF is already gone most of the time. Even if I publish everything all at once, I still have emails to answer, forum threads to read, maintenance issues and "needs archived" logs to address, etc.

[+dprovan]

This all seems like a bunch of "what if??"...

That's correct. The advice that reviewers shouldn't be FTF hounds eliminates the "what if"'s and make the matter moot no matter what.

 

I still maintain that this is just the whinings and whispers...

Does it help you see my point at all if I mention I really don't care about FTFs, so I couldn't possibly be whining or whispering?

[+fbingha]

Does it help you see my point at all if I mention I really don't care about FTFs, so I couldn't possibly be whining or whispering?

Sorry about that. I was alluding to whatever caused this thread to be created.

 

FTF hounds find all sort of grievances to get get upset over.

 

 

[+tozainamboku]

When I have ten more caches to look at, I cannot very well run out and grab a newly published one that's 15 miles from home. I still have a bunch of work left to do in the same session for caches 50, 100 and 150 miles from home. By the time I finish the rest of the work, the local FTF is already gone most of the time. Even if I publish everything all at once, I still have emails to answer, forum threads to read, maintenance issues and "needs archived" logs to address, etc.

Just because you don't manage your time to get a first to find, doesn't mean some other reviewer can't.

 

The FTF hounds are known for dropping whatever they are doing as soon as that notification pops up on their cell phone and heading for the cache. Some are even known to watch as a reviewer is working through their queue to try to predict when the next cache gets published. It is no wonder then that they believe we all are looking for any advantage in that race to be first to find.

 

The way I see it, all's fair in the FTF race. If a reviewer really wants that FTF they ought to be allowed to use their position to gain an advantage.

[+larryc43230]

When I have ten more caches to look at, I cannot very well run out and grab a newly published one that's 15 miles from home. I still have a bunch of work left to do in the same session for caches 50, 100 and 150 miles from home. By the time I finish the rest of the work, the local FTF is already gone most of the time. Even if I publish everything all at once, I still have emails to answer, forum threads to read, maintenance issues and "needs archived" logs to address, etc.

Just because you don't manage your time to get a first to find, doesn't mean some other reviewer can't.

 

The FTF hounds are known for dropping whatever they are doing as soon as that notification pops up on their cell phone and heading for the cache. Some are even known to watch as a reviewer is working through their queue to try to predict when the next cache gets published. It is no wonder then that they believe we all are looking for any advantage in that race to be first to find.

 

The way I see it, all's fair in the FTF race. If a reviewer really wants that FTF they ought to be allowed to use their position to gain an advantage.

^ ^ ^

 

This.

 

Well said, Toz.

 

--Larry

[+briansnat]

What is the cache or caches that this thread was inspired by? Let's talk about the specific situation.

 

Please do. The hypotheticals are just that. If someone has evidence of a reviewer abusing his position please report it to Groundspeak and maybe we can go back to discussing micros in the woods, power trails and phony logs.

Edited October 26, 2013 by briansnat

[+wmpastor]

What is the cache or caches that this thread was inspired by? Let's talk about the specific situation.

 

Please do. The hypotheticals are just that. If someone has evidence of a reviewer abusing his position please report it to Groundspeak and maybe we can go back to discussing micros in the woods, power trails and phony logs.

This thread has reviewers in the hotseat & they don't like that one bit! (Who would? )

 

It's also 99.99% unwarranted, since no one has pointed out suspicious cases of FTF chicanery - although there's no doubt that it could occur.

 

Perhaps some posters enjoy seeing the reviewers squirm?!

[+dprovan]

This thread has reviewers in the hotseat & they don't like that one bit! (Who would? )

I'm honestly sad that anyone thinks anything negative is being said about reviewers here.

 

What is the cache or caches that this thread was inspired by? Let's talk about the specific situation.

Please do. The hypotheticals are just that. If someone has evidence of a reviewer abusing his position please report it to Groundspeak and maybe we can go back to discussing micros in the woods, power trails and phony logs.

This is all about hypotheticals. We know that reviewers would never betray our trust in them. That's not the point. What we're discussing is what someone else might imagine a reviewer would do, and the simple approach reviewers can and do take to avoid such misunderstandings.

[+eigengott]

This is all about hypotheticals. We know that reviewers would never betray our trust in them. That's not the point. What we're discussing is what someone else might imagine a reviewer would do, and the simple approach reviewers can and do take to avoid such misunderstandings.

 

Following that logic, we (Geocachers) should all stop searching for Geocaches right now. Because someone might imagine a Geocacher who destroys/steals a cache. Which obviously is even worse than just scribbling into an empty logbook.

[+dprovan]

This is all about hypotheticals. We know that reviewers would never betray our trust in them. That's not the point. What we're discussing is what someone else might imagine a reviewer would do, and the simple approach reviewers can and do take to avoid such misunderstandings.

Following that logic, we (Geocachers) should all stop searching for Geocaches right now. Because someone might imagine a Geocacher who destroys/steals a cache. Which obviously is even worse than just scribbling into an empty logbook.

Reviewers are in a position of trust, which adds to their responsibilities and makes these two cases entirely different.

[+CanadianRockies]

This is all about hypotheticals. We know that reviewers would never betray our trust in them. That's not the point. What we're discussing is what someone else might imagine a reviewer would do, and the simple approach reviewers can and do take to avoid such misunderstandings.

Following that logic, we (Geocachers) should all stop searching for Geocaches right now. Because someone might imagine a Geocacher who destroys/steals a cache. Which obviously is even worse than just scribbling into an empty logbook.

Reviewers are in a position of trust, which adds to their responsibilities and makes these two cases entirely different.

Another difference is that there's not much Groundspeak can do to prevent a person from destroying/stealing a cache.

 

But if Groundspeak determined that significant problems were being created by reviewers seeking FTFs on traditional caches, then they could request that reviewers refrain from doing so for, say, the first 24 hours after publication. Reviewers already generally refrain from seeking multi-caches and puzzle caches.

[+tozainamboku]

Another difference is that there's not much Groundspeak can do to prevent a person from destroying/stealing a cache.

Groundspeak in fact has done something to deal with cache theft. When the earliest reports of people using the website to locate caches in order to steal them, they made the decision to support the idea of premium members only caches. The idea being that the thieves were not likely to pay for a premium membership. There is evidence that this has had some success in deterring cache theft.

But if Groundspeak determined that significant problems were being created by reviewers seeking FTFs on traditional caches, then they could request that reviewers refrain from doing so for, say, the first 24 hours after publication. Reviewers already generally refrain from seeking multi-caches and puzzle caches.

This assumes that a reviewer getting first to find really was a significant problem. My guess is that for the reasons Keystone gave, even if a reviewer were take advantage of their position, there would still be a reasonable chance for others to get FTF in that area. It would take a significant amount of work and planning for a reviewer to be able to lock out everyone else from getting an FTF.

 

My opinion is that the this hypothetical is just an attempt by the FTF hounds to get Groundspeak to acknowledge that there is a competition to get FTFs. So far, Groundspeak has indicated that they aren't going to get involved in this side game. There are many controversies over what is fair play in attempting a FTF beyond the hypothetical situation of a reviewer using "insider information". If Groundspeak gives in and makes rules for reviewers, the demands of the FTF crowd will not cease there. In fact a reviewer rule will be used as the example for why there should be all sorts of rules on who can participate in looking for an unfound cache.

[+CanadianRockies]

But if Groundspeak determined that significant problems were being created by reviewers seeking FTFs on traditional caches, then they could request that reviewers refrain from doing so for, say, the first 24 hours after publication. Reviewers already generally refrain from seeking multi-caches and puzzle caches.

My guess is that for the reasons Keystone gave, even if a reviewer were take advantage of their position, there would still be a reasonable chance for others to get FTF in that area.

How much of an FTF advantage reviewers might get depends on how exactly and how often they took advantage of their position. For example, if they pushed the "Publish" button when they were parked 20 yards from the cache, then their advantage likely would be huge. They then could drive to the next cache and press the "Publish" button for that one. Not every reviewer has to organize their workload in the same way Keystone does.

 

It would take a significant amount of work and planning for a reviewer to be able to lock out everyone else from getting an FTF.

A reviewer could lock out virtually all FTF hounds simply by logging finds before they pressed "Publish." That would be risky, but it wouldn't require much work or planning.

 

My opinion is that the this hypothetical is just an attempt by the FTF hounds to get Groundspeak to acknowledge that there is a competition to get FTFs.

Groundspeak already acknowledges that there's an FTF competition. Have you seen the FTF geocoin they sell? Have you read how they promote premium membership as a way to get FTFs via instant notifications?

 

So far, Groundspeak has indicated that they aren't going to get involved in this side game. There are many controversies over what is fair play in attempting a FTF beyond the hypothetical situation of a reviewer using "insider information". If Groundspeak gives in and makes rules for reviewers, the demands of the FTF crowd will not cease there. In fact a reviewer rule will be used as the example for why there should be all sorts of rules on who can participate in looking for an unfound cache.

There already is a reviewer rule that states reviewers generally should refrain from being the first to find multi-caches and puzzle caches. And the sky has yet to fall.

[+cheech gang]

Seinfeld was a show "about nothing" and was popular for 9 years. This is a thread about a problem that isn't a problem and has gone on for only 5 days. We still have plenty of fun entertainment ahead of us!

Edited October 28, 2013 by cheech gang

[+Glenn]

What if the reviewer gets an FTF on a cache he or she publishes, finds out the cache is buried, and retracts the listing?

If I had my way it would be a requirement that reviewers be the FTF on every cache before publishing it. Then maybe there wouldn't be so many crappy caches.

[jholly]

What if the reviewer gets an FTF on a cache he or she publishes, finds out the cache is buried, and retracts the listing?

If I had my way it would be a requirement that reviewers be the FTF on every cache before publishing it. Then maybe there wouldn't be so many crappy caches.

Oh, are we now suggesting that in order for a cache to be published it must pass the wow factor test? That should provide some very entertaining threads.

[+Don_J]

Rightly or wrongly, the caching community will question an FTF of the reviewer who published the cache ... even if the reviewer goes to church 3 times a week!

This member of the caching community doesn't agree with you, and please don't claim to speak for me.

 

How can you possibly know the consensus of an entire community? Got any proof, or even evidence?

 

Sorry, but this sort of blanket claim always mightily irritates me.

 

--Larry

You are technically correct. What I meant, and what I should have said more precisely, was "a significant portion of the caching community." What percentage? I don't know. But I'm certain it's more than a few outliers.

 

Really? A significant portion? I've been to 69 events. I've hiked 100's of miles with dozens of different cachers, some of which are avid FTF hounds, and I can't recall the topic ever coming up.

[+redsox_mark]

I too have never seen the question of reviewers and FTFs come up at any events or when on the trails with other cachers. But general discussion about FTFs DOES come up a lot, including examples where people have felt the FTF was unfair in some way (e.g. FTF before publication).

 

It has come up in 2 recent forum threads (this being the second).

 

So in general I conclude reviewers getting a FTF is for the most part not an issue. But occasionally someone "loses" FTF to a reviewer and thinks "is that fair?".

 

To me the debates here are more about why it is not an issue. It seems it is not an issue as reviewers do consider FTFs and to some extent refrain from going for them:

 

• The posts from Keystone regarding puzzle and multi caches
  
• Another Keystone reference showing a very small number of FTFs post becoming a reviewer.
  
• In the previous thread, the reviewer was known as a "FTF hound" prior to becoming a reviewer, and agreed to be less of one once he became a reviewer
  

 

Most of the debate has been around should reviewers need to "show restraint" on FTFs or not. Some think no; if the reviewer wants to organize their reviewing so they can also get a high percentage of FTFs, that is fine. They should not need to worry about what others may think. Others (including myself) think it is wise for a reviewer to refrain from being seen as a FTF hound.

 

My view is that - guidelines or not - reviewers do show this "restraint", so this is a non-issue. I am also sure that - in spite of those who don't give a "clam's patootie" - if reviewers were FTF hounds, it WOULD be an issue.

 

There is a local FTF hound near me. His stats show a FTF every 2 days on average, and 13% of his finds are FTFs. He is the nicest guy you will ever meet, and doesn't brag about them etc. A few other FTF hounds are jealous but this doesn't cause any angst. Now if he became a reviewer and continued to find FTFs at that rate I am sure this would become the talk of events and local Facebook forums etc. At least in my area.

 

Now of course many reviewers don't care about FTFs themselves.. so they don't need to restrain themselves.

 

That is my point. Not that reviewers would use their position to an unfair advantage. Not that we need more rules.

Edited October 28, 2013 by redsox_mark

[+Glenn]

What if the reviewer gets an FTF on a cache he or she publishes, finds out the cache is buried, and retracts the listing?

If I had my way it would be a requirement that reviewers be the FTF on every cache before publishing it. Then maybe there wouldn't be so many crappy caches.

Oh, are we now suggesting that in order for a cache to be published it must pass the wow factor test? That should provide some very entertaining threads.

I thought we learned that this was bad idea when we lost virtual caches to the wow factor.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of reviewers being able to discover caches placements that didn't follow the guidelines. E.g. buried, placed on private property without permission, wrong cache size selected, coordinates way off, etc.

[Clan Riffster]

Rightly or wrongly, the caching community will question an FTF of the reviewer who published the cache ... even if the reviewer goes to church 3 times a week!

This member of the caching community doesn't agree with you, and please don't claim to speak for me.

 

How can you possibly know the consensus of an entire community? Got any proof, or even evidence?

 

Sorry, but this sort of blanket claim always mightily irritates me.

 

--Larry

You are technically correct. What I meant, and what I should have said more precisely, was "a significant portion of the caching community." What percentage? I don't know. But I'm certain it's more than a few outliers.

 

I know a LOT of cachers and the vast majority don't give a clam's patootie about FTF, nevermind a reviewer getting a FTF. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that a significant portion of FTF hounds may care, but they are still a small segment of the caching community.

Exactly. I'm probably not as widely known as Brian. My best guess is that I know roughly 400 cachers well enough to call them friends. Of these, I can only think of one, maybe two, who care about the silliness known as the FTF side game. I realize that those 400 are only a minuscule portion of the whole caching population, though it certainly is indicative of a trend. Of those two who do care about FTFs, neither are paranoid enough to concern themselves with this nonsense issue.

[Clan Riffster]

...then this thread should just die.

Oh no! Please don't kill it!

The ravings of the paranoid minority are quite amusing.

[+Lil Devil]

Since no one yet has provided any real examples of abuse, I'll proved some real examples of what I have done as a reviewer.

 

Sometimes I do go after FTF. But not so much for the actual FTF, but more for the social encounters. Here's a couple of examples.

 

Back when I was working in a big office, I would often review at my desk after work hours. If a cache was close by, I would make a note of it. I would publish it, and continue publishing others. Eventually, I would go back and load the new cache in my GPS. Then I would pack up my stuff and leave the office. Then I would go to a nearby fast food establishment and get some dinner. I would eat that dinner while driving to the cache. I would arrive at the cache 30-60 minutes after it was published. Usually there would be a few cachers already there and we would have a mini-event while searching for the cache. Some might have already found it, and would hang out and chat with the new arrivals. During those years I worked there I actually got the FTF 3 times out of about two dozen "attempts."

 

I will note that occasionally someone at one of those FTF-fests would start to complain about me as a reviewer being there looking for FTF. Usually I wouldn't even say anything because several other cachers would already jump on the newbie and point out not only did I have just as much right to be there, but that I wasn't even close to being the first one there.

 

I am now semi-retired and work and review at home. A few months ago I reviewed and published several caches that were about 15 miles away. I then went to the kitchen, made lunch, and brought it back to my desk to eat while I loaded my GPS. Then I went and put some outdoor clothes on, laced up my boots and jumped in the car. I arrived at the first cache about 1 hour after it was published. I got FTF. I went to the 2nd cache and found another cacher had signed it about the same time I was finding the 1st cache. I then went to the 3rd cache and found 2 others already searching. This one was a toughie, and I did have a extra hint that the CO had provided in a reviewer note. I spotted the cache almost right away, but played dumb for a little while, pretending to search elsewhere. Eventually, when the others had looked at the well-cammoed cache several times, and disregarded it, I "looked closer" and discovered how to open it. The log was inside an inner container that was locked with a combination. The combo was hinted at on the cache page. I interpreted the hint wrong, and couldn't open it. Someone else tried, and interpreted the hint correctly, and opened the cache. I considered that person the FTF and did not claim any sort of silly "shared" FTF. Had the others not been there, I would have logged a DNF because I couldn't open the cache.

 

There is another question, which hasn't been raised yet in this thread. Is it OK for a reviewer to get FTF on a cache that another reviewer published?

 

I share my review area with 2 other reviewers. I have notifications set up to send me a text when they publish a cache in my area. For those, I figure they are completely fair game for me since others would have had exactly the same notification I got. Three or four years ago, I was already in bed around 10pm one night in early December, when I heard my phone buzz in the other room. I thought to myself, "Nope, already in bed." A minute later my phone buzzed again. I perked up. A few moments later it buzzed again. Then again. Now I was curious. I got up and put my robe on and walked to the office. By that time my phone buzzed 3 more times. It continued to buzz as I woke up my computer and logged into geocaching.com. Turned out there was a series of the "Twelve Days of Christmas" plus one bonus cache. Partial coords for the bonus were hidden in 6 of the 12 other caches, but it was unknown which 6. I did end up getting dressed and spent the next 3 hours (until after 1am) driving all over my town finding all 13 caches and getting FTF on all of them.

 

So, can anyone explain how I've abused any privilege in any of these real-life scenarios?

[jholly]

So, can anyone explain how I've abused any privilege in any of these real-life scenarios?

I thought it was fairly obvious on the 13 cache series. You did not stop to prepare yourself something to eat. Going hungry while searching for FTF's is an unfair advantage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[4wheelin_fool]

A reviewer certainly could abuse their position for a silly FTF, but it would be rather obvious and counterproductive. What exactly would the reviewer get out of it? If everyone knows they are the reviewer, how could they cheat and get away with it? It's a silly hypotheses that hasn't happened.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

So, can anyone explain how I've abused any privilege in any of these real-life scenarios?

I thought it was fairly obvious on the 13 cache series. You did not stop to prepare yourself something to eat. Going hungry while searching for FTF's is an unfair advantage.

 

 

I agree. The other FTF hounds were shoveling food into their mouths as quickly as possible. Imagine how cheated they felt when they arrived at GZ and realized you didn't eat anything!

[+CanadianRockies]

I then went to the 3rd cache and found 2 others already searching. This one was a toughie, and I did have a extra hint that the CO had provided in a reviewer note. I spotted the cache almost right away, but played dumb for a little while, pretending to search elsewhere. Eventually, when the others had looked at the well-cammoed cache several times, and disregarded it, I "looked closer" and discovered how to open it. The log was inside an inner container that was locked with a combination. The combo was hinted at on the cache page. I interpreted the hint wrong, and couldn't open it. Someone else tried, and interpreted the hint correctly, and opened the cache. I considered that person the FTF and did not claim any sort of silly "shared" FTF. Had the others not been there, I would have logged a DNF because I couldn't open the cache.

If the others had not been there and you were able to open the cache, then would you have claimed the FTF? If so, then I can see how that might upset some serious FTF hounds (assuming they learned of the extra hint in the Reviewer Note and that hint provided a significant advantage).

[+dprovan]

So, can anyone explain how I've abused any privilege in any of these real-life scenarios?

Again, the question isn't whether you're abusing your privilege, but whether everyone else can be sure you aren't abusing your privilege. And you know the answer is "no" because you've had people object when you show up. The fact that other people that know you better defend you doesn't help because these same people will be asking these same questions even when you and your friends aren't in the room.

 

Although I admit I'm just talking generally, without any knowledge of your community. I can imagine a reviewer being well known as an FTF hound, and well known as being exceedingly caution to give everyone else a fair crack, and that reputation might overcome the occasional temporary bad feelings from new comers, particularly if you respond to any criticism in a friendly way and are prepared to take any ribbing with grace.

 

I then went to the 3rd cache and found 2 others already searching. This one was a toughie, and I did have a extra hint that the CO had provided in a reviewer note. I spotted the cache almost right away, but played dumb for a little while, pretending to search elsewhere. Eventually, when the others had looked at the well-cammoed cache several times, and disregarded it, I "looked closer" and discovered how to open it.

And astonishingly, you unabashedly give an example of where you did abuse your position to succeed in an FTF effort. Now, as I've said before, I don't begrudge you doing that once in a while as long as you're up front about it, I just find it amusing that you're telling us all about it in a list that's intended to show that reviewer abuse doesn't happen.

 

There is another question, which hasn't been raised yet in this thread. Is it OK for a reviewer to get FTF on a cache that another reviewer published?

There's no reason for a cacher in your area to have any idea who reviewed what. If you're really that into FTFs, I'd suggest explicitly mentioning that you got the notification out of the blue as a way of indicating that you weren't the reviewer for it. I don't think you can depend on all cachers to know which reviewer accounts match with which seeker accounts even if they do know which seeker accounts are reviewers.

 

And I can't help but point out that the abuse you already admitted to would be just as easy even if you weren't the reviewer that published the cache with the hint in the reviewer notes.

 

Sometimes I do go after FTF. But not so much for the actual FTF, but more for the social encounters.

If that's the case, then I'm sure you never claim FTF honors. Right?

 

A reviewer certainly could abuse their position for a silly FTF, but it would be rather obvious and counterproductive. What exactly would the reviewer get out of it? If everyone knows they are the reviewer, how could they cheat and get away with it? It's a silly hypotheses that hasn't happened.

I'm not sure why you're so sure such abuse would be obvious. As far as I can see, the only thing that would make it seem obvious is a lot of success, and that's exactly what I'm suggesting reviewers avoid even in light of the sure knowledge they aren't abusing their positions. And, in fact, my main attitude is precisely the same as yours, although I reach the opposite conclusion: what exactly would the reviewer get out of a silly FTF even when we know they wouldn't abuse their position to get it?

[fendmar]

Internal controls aren't always implemented reactively!

[+Lil Devil]

I then went to the 3rd cache and found 2 others already searching. This one was a toughie, and I did have a extra hint that the CO had provided in a reviewer note. I spotted the cache almost right away, but played dumb for a little while, pretending to search elsewhere. Eventually, when the others had looked at the well-cammoed cache several times, and disregarded it, I "looked closer" and discovered how to open it. The log was inside an inner container that was locked with a combination. The combo was hinted at on the cache page. I interpreted the hint wrong, and couldn't open it. Someone else tried, and interpreted the hint correctly, and opened the cache. I considered that person the FTF and did not claim any sort of silly "shared" FTF. Had the others not been there, I would have logged a DNF because I couldn't open the cache.

If the others had not been there and you were able to open the cache, then would you have claimed the FTF? If so, then I can see how that might upset some serious FTF hounds (assuming they learned of the extra hint in the Reviewer Note and that hint provided a significant advantage).

A fair question. With over 20,000 finds, I had actually seen that hide style before, and while I may not have spotted it "right away" without the extra hint, I do believe I would have recognized it after a short search. So yes, had the others not been there, and if I successfully opened it, I would have felt no problem claiming the FTF.

[+Lil Devil]

I then went to the 3rd cache and found 2 others already searching. This one was a toughie, and I did have a extra hint that the CO had provided in a reviewer note. I spotted the cache almost right away, but played dumb for a little while, pretending to search elsewhere. Eventually, when the others had looked at the well-cammoed cache several times, and disregarded it, I "looked closer" and discovered how to open it.

And astonishingly, you unabashedly give an example of where you did abuse your position to succeed in an FTF effort. Now, as I've said before, I don't begrudge you doing that once in a while as long as you're up front about it, I just find it amusing that you're telling us all about it in a list that's intended to show that reviewer abuse doesn't happen.

See my post above. With my experience, the extra hint only allowed me to spot it faster than usual. I fully believe I would have found it anyways. So my delay by "playing dumb for a little while" actually leveled the playing field.

 

There is another question, which hasn't been raised yet in this thread. Is it OK for a reviewer to get FTF on a cache that another reviewer published?

There's no reason for a cacher in your area to have any idea who reviewed what.

Excuse me? Have you ever looked at the notification one gets for a new cache? It includes the publisher's name. And the first log on the cache is the "Published" log written by the publisher. So if a cacher has no idea who reviewed what, they're blind and wouldn't be caching in the first place.

 

I don't think you can depend on all cachers to know which reviewer accounts match with which seeker accounts even if they do know which seeker accounts are reviewers.

Sure I can. All three of us are very well known throughout our community. We all often wear two nametags at events with both our player and reviewer names.

 

Sometimes I do go after FTF. But not so much for the actual FTF, but more for the social encounters.

If that's the case, then I'm sure you never claim FTF honors. Right?

I typically mention it casually in my log, and I do track it for Challenge Cache purposes (I haven't reached 100 FTFs yet).

[fendmar]

This one was a toughie, and I did have a extra hint that the CO had provided in a reviewer note.

 

Finally, anecdotal evidence from an actual reviewer that states a reviewer could have access to information that others would not and probably information the CO didn't intend for any of the searchers to have or they would've included it in the cache description. Clearly information that gave the reviewer an advantage over the others in the hunt!!! Arguably, the CO might have included the info in the reviewer note to give the reviewer an advantage over the other FTF'ers.

[+J Grouchy]

Question:

I published a simple puzzle cache recently and before it got published, I got a note stating "'Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved. This log will auto-delete on publication.' Please provide how and where the geocache is hidden in a reviewer note with any submission." Now, that first part is from the guidelines and I get it...that they don't want to publish a cache with some unsolveable puzzle. But the second part...about "how and where the geocache is hidden" is NOT from the guidelines. I'm curious whether the reviewer can actually ask for that as a condition of publication. Can they? Now, this particular reviewer doesn't (and in this case, did not) go for FTFs...but it seems like reviewers asking for such information could at that point have an "unfair advantage".

[+Don_J]

Question:

I published a simple puzzle cache recently and before it got published, I got a note stating "'Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved. This log will auto-delete on publication.' Please provide how and where the geocache is hidden in a reviewer note with any submission." Now, that first part is from the guidelines and I get it...that they don't want to publish a cache with some unsolveable puzzle. But the second part...about "how and where the geocache is hidden" is NOT from the guidelines. I'm curious whether the reviewer can actually ask for that as a condition of publication. Can they? Now, this particular reviewer doesn't (and in this case, did not) go for FTFs...but it seems like reviewers asking for such information could at that point have an "unfair advantage".

 

This has come up before where people were reporting that their reviewer was asking this for all caches. No one official ever commented so there was a lot of conjecture on if these reviewers were doing this on their own of if it was a test for future reviewing requirements. I seriously doubt that your reviewer is doing this so they can get an FTF. He/she just wants to make sure you didn't drill a hole in a tree or something.

[+J Grouchy]

Question:

I published a simple puzzle cache recently and before it got published, I got a note stating "'Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved. This log will auto-delete on publication.' Please provide how and where the geocache is hidden in a reviewer note with any submission." Now, that first part is from the guidelines and I get it...that they don't want to publish a cache with some unsolveable puzzle. But the second part...about "how and where the geocache is hidden" is NOT from the guidelines. I'm curious whether the reviewer can actually ask for that as a condition of publication. Can they? Now, this particular reviewer doesn't (and in this case, did not) go for FTFs...but it seems like reviewers asking for such information could at that point have an "unfair advantage".

 

This has come up before where people were reporting that their reviewer was asking this for all caches. No one official ever commented so there was a lot of conjecture on if these reviewers were doing this on their own of if it was a test for future reviewing requirements. I seriously doubt that your reviewer is doing this so they can get an FTF. He/she just wants to make sure you didn't drill a hole in a tree or something.

 

I didn't really worry too much in this instance since our reviewer isn't the kind to go for FTFs (I think he is based a good distance from my own location, anyway). I was just curious is that was a legitimate - or even common - requirement. It was the first time I'd even been asked to provide the method of solving any of my puzzles, so I thought perhaps GS was implementing stricter requirements for submissions.

[Clan Riffster]

So, can anyone explain how I've abused any privilege?

You must repent! Remember, this issue is not about Reviewers actually abusing their status, since there has, to date, been no indication that this has ever happened, anywhere. Rather, it's about how you should change how you cache, to appease a tiny minority, of a tiny minority, specifically, those who are passionate about the informal and unofficial FTF side game. This minority of a minority is apparently populated by self entitled delusional paranoids who repeatedly stress silliness such as, "Well, sure, it hasn't happened. But it could!"

[+CanadianRockies]

So, can anyone explain how I've abused any privilege?

You must repent! Remember, this issue is not about Reviewers actually abusing their status, since there has, to date, been no indication that this has ever happened, anywhere. Rather, it's about how you should change how you cache, to appease a tiny minority, of a tiny minority, specifically, those who are passionate about the informal and unofficial FTF side game. This minority of a minority is apparently populated by self entitled delusional paranoids who repeatedly stress silliness such as, "Well, sure, it hasn't happened. But it could!"

As far as I know, there's no history of Volunteer Reviewers having abused their positions to claim FTFs for multi-caches or puzzle caches. But Groundspeak policy apparently asks reviewers to generally refrain from seeking to be FTFs for those types of caches. Is Groundspeak paranoid and delusional, too? Is it wrong to be proactive or should companies only reactively respond after incidents occur?

 

Most conflict of interest policies prohibit not just actions that have happened but also actions that could happen. That's why judges sometimes will recuse themselves from judicial proceedings before those proceedings even begin. That's why many politicians are prohibited from accepting significant gifts from lobbyists, even if they vote against those lobbyists' interests. That's why it's usually illegal for police officers to accept bribes, even if those bribes don't influence their actions at all.

[Clan Riffster]

So, can anyone explain how I've abused any privilege?

You must repent! Remember, this issue is not about Reviewers actually abusing their status, since there has, to date, been no indication that this has ever happened, anywhere. Rather, it's about how you should change how you cache, to appease a tiny minority, of a tiny minority, specifically, those who are passionate about the informal and unofficial FTF side game. This minority of a minority is apparently populated by self entitled delusional paranoids who repeatedly stress silliness such as, "Well, sure, it hasn't happened. But it could!"

...that could happen

Speaking of paranoid...

[+dprovan]

Rather, it's about how you should change how you cache, to appease a tiny minority, of a tiny minority, specifically, those who are passionate about the informal and unofficial FTF side game.

Or it's about a reviewer being sensitive to the feelings of a group of people that care about FTFs exactly as much as the reviewer does.

[Clan Riffster]

Rather, it's about how you should change how you cache, to appease a tiny minority, of a tiny minority, specifically, those who are passionate about the informal and unofficial FTF side game.

Or it's about a reviewer being sensitive to the feelings of a group of people that care about FTFs exactly as much as the reviewer does.

But, if the feelings were precisely the same, as you seem to be inferring, then the Reviewer would be nabbing every single FTF that crossed their plate. Since that hasn't happened, ever, I'm thinking that the Reviewer isn't quite the FTF hound you make them out to be.

[+CanadianRockies]

So, can anyone explain how I've abused any privilege?

You must repent! Remember, this issue is not about Reviewers actually abusing their status, since there has, to date, been no indication that this has ever happened, anywhere. Rather, it's about how you should change how you cache, to appease a tiny minority, of a tiny minority, specifically, those who are passionate about the informal and unofficial FTF side game. This minority of a minority is apparently populated by self entitled delusional paranoids who repeatedly stress silliness such as, "Well, sure, it hasn't happened. But it could!"

Most conflict of interest policies prohibit not just actions that have happened but also actions that could happen.

Speaking of paranoid...

So, do you think Groundspeak also is paranoid for its policy regarding reviewer FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches? Do you think police officers should be allowed to accept bribes as long as it doesn't influence their actions? Should judges not recuse themselves from any case as long as they don't let their self-interests affect their decisions? Do you think legislators should be able to accept gifts from lobbyists as long as that doesn't affect their votes?

 

Me thinks you don't have a good grasp of the reasons that underlie many conflict of interest policies.

[+TriciaG]

So, do you think Groundspeak also is paranoid for its policy regarding reviewer FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches?

Groundspeak is apparently concerned about CoI on multis and puzzles. If they were concerned about CoI on trads, they'd have made a policy about it when they did on multis and puzzles. Apparently GS didn't think there was enough ground to slap a policy on trads.

[+dprovan]

But, if the feelings were precisely the same, as you seem to be inferring, then the Reviewer would be nabbing every single FTF that crossed their plate.

OK, I guess this is what you're missing. No, the reviewer wouldn't have to be getting every single FTF he could. He would only need to consider FTFs important and grab them frequently. Not every FTF fan is rabid, and any old FTF fan could be suspicious of a reviewer that often seems to beat him to the FTF.

[+Tobias & Petronella]

Speaking as someone who will "Drop Everything" to chase after an FTF.

 

If a reviewer in the Greater Seattle Area also wants to go after a newly published Traditional Cache or easy Puzzles, just wait 10-15 minutes. By that time I or one of the other FTFers (that we know of) will already have the cache in hand, or at the very least still be looking for it. For Multi-Caches they would also need to find each WP first. It doesn't matter what time of day, day of week or weather, come out and play.

 

If Petronella and I want to chase after FTFs, we can be on the road (normally) in 90 seconds or less, and I know of a cacher that can do it in half that time. I have told a lot of new cachers ways to speed up their time, so if a reviewer wants to join the party they are welcome by us and every FTFer that we know.

 

If for some reason the reviewer doesn't want to wait 10-15 minutes before heading out, then wait 10-15 minutes at GZ before looking. A co-FTF is still an FTF.

 

It's not a race unless you have someone to race against.

[+tozainamboku]

So, do you think Groundspeak also is paranoid for its policy regarding reviewer FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches?

Groundspeak is apparently concerned about CoI on multis and puzzles. If they were concerned about CoI on trads, they'd have made a policy about it when they did on multis and puzzles. Apparently GS didn't think there was enough ground to slap a policy on trads.

Is there really a GS policy on multicaches and puzzles? I have the impression that this is more of an informal agreement among reviewers.

 

The issue is different here because as part of the review process the final coordinates of puzzles and multicaches are known to reviewers. Most reviewers understand that the appeal of a multicache or a puzzle is to work out the final coordinates. Skipping this work and going directly to the final because you know the coordinates from reviewing the cache doesn't seem quite legitimate. However, it seems that many reviewers are willing to wait a period of time and then look for these caches. They feel that after a few days they aren't going to remember the coordinates, and even though they still have access as reviewers, they trust themselves not to look them up.

 

The advantage on a traditional cache is very minor by comparison, and only of concern to FTF players. It seems that already the reviewers are voluntarily taking action to account for even the small advantage they might have in going for a FTF. If they are reviewing from home, they might count to 10 after pressing "Publish" to allow the notification to be sent out to everyone before they leave to go after the cache. If they happen to publish a cache across from the coffee shop where they are using the WiFi, it seems that they might just order another latte while waiting for the FTF crowd to show up, and then go out to meet them.