Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
npg

Bug in appeals@geocaching com or Support is only for PM?

Recommended Posts

After not getting any comment on 2 Requests and one email to appeals@geocaching.com i think its time to ask if someone have experience therein ?

 

One of our Reviewers (austria) told me to contact appeals as he think that my Listing (a Challenge Cache about long unfound Caches - similiar to this Challenge ...i have only uped the days to 300 in my listing) did not appeal (i dont know if he mean attract in this case - for sure its not attractive for Cachers who have to find 2000 or more Caches a year...to timeconsuming :rolleyes: ) and is not for a reasonable amount of Cachers. (whatever this term means).

 

So i filled out a Request on the support site and get this message with my request:

 

Your access key : 429817wopnwr

 

The access key provided above can be used to check the status of your request.

For quick access to updates bookmark this page.

 

· Oct 25 2013, 03:13 AM

 

Thats the second request after my first will be deleted ..or moved? ...after some days and only

'This access key is not on file' appeared on the so told bookmarked site.

 

Same Procedure for the above Request, who disappeared yesterday.

 

So this could be a bug...or is a Request -or answer to a request only applicable for Premium Members ?

Or should this mean that the answer of the reviewer to my Listing is all i have to know (also means, as i not restricted in any of the Parameters ....any Cache who deals with Caches not found for some time is for now on against the Guidelines)

 

Oh: Its nothing in my Spamfilter - and the (automaticly filled in) emailadress is correct.

Share this post


Link to post

It's an automated system to handle these things, and Groundspeak bought it "off the shelf" so some features they may not use. You did get that email, so you did send something, and someone will read it. Sometimes things do fall through the cracks, no matter how well the system is though. If you don't hear back try sending an email(Not an online form) directly to Groundspeak. But give it a bit, it may be three days, or it may take a week to answer you if they are busy.

Share this post


Link to post

After not getting any comment on 2 Requests and one email to appeals@geocaching.com i think its time to ask if someone have experience therein ?

 

I do not have personal experiences with the appeal process, but with using the contact form. In July I sent a request via the contact form channel and made the same experience than you.

For a few days the request stayed in the queue and then it had suddenly disappeared (same type of error message you received). I then wrote an e-mail (this works much better in my experience) and was told that apparently my request got lost and that this happened to others as well. They asked me to send my request again, but I was then too lazy to type everything again (and I did not save a copy which was a bis mistake).

 

When did you send your mail to appeals@geocaching.com? You typically need to wait for a few days at least, in complicated cases it might take even longer.

 

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

After not getting any comment on 2 Requests and one email to appeals@geocaching.com i think its time to ask if someone have experience therein ?

 

I do not have personal experiences with the appeal process, but with using the contact form. In July I sent a request via the contact form channel and made the same experience than you.

For a few days the request stayed in the queue and then it had suddenly disappeared (same type of error message you received). I then wrote an e-mail (this works much better in my experience) and was told that apparently my request got lost and that this happened to others as well. They asked me to send my request again, but I was then too lazy to type everything again (and I did not save a copy which was a bis mistake).

 

When did you send your mail to appeals@geocaching.com? You typically need to wait for a few days at least, in complicated cases it might take even longer.

 

 

Cezanne

The email was sent on Sunday 20.oktober - same day as the Reviewer advised me to contact appeals.

After not getting any reply (that the email reached someone there) I see the contact form - and both Requests dissappear after 3 or 4 days.

 

You got also an answer to your e-mail - something like: your email was received... or only the final reply to your Question?

 

T.D.M.22: I got never a email - the Quote with the accesskey only appeared on the contactform with my request (i saved the second one as i have the intuition that this will happen also with my 2.Request) - so if this get lost i think nobody ever know that the Request ever exists (Maybe works like the Reviewerqueue - if disappeared nobody ever read it).

 

So entering a 3 Requestsite would not be of any chance to reach someone.

If after 3 weeks no reply to my email ...i will send another one.

Share this post


Link to post

The email was sent on Sunday 20.oktober - same day as the Reviewer advised me to contact appeals.

After not getting any reply (that the email reached someone there) I see the contact form - and both Requests dissappear after 3 or 4 days.

You got also an answer to your e-mail - something like: your email was received... or only the final reply to your Question?

 

As far as I remember I only got the final answer in case of the e-mail, but I'm not 100% sure about that any longer.

I was somehow quite angry (about the faulty Groundspeak system and a reviewer) and that's not the best condition for ensuring that my memory is reliable.

 

BTW: As your original post is regarded. I do not fully understand all what you wrote above and it might be that also the people at appeals have a similar issue. Of course the gist of your post (that a reviewer and I'm quite sure which one) rejected your challenge cache and directed you to appeals is clear.

I did not understand what you exactly mean with "Or should this mean .....".

 

If the reviewer directed you to appeals, than it seems to me that it is reasonable to expect a reply from there and not to be satisfied with the negative reply by the reviewer.

 

While the guidelines for challenges have been last updated in August this year (see here

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

I cannot find any statement that forbids challenge caches as the one from Canada (published in February 2013) or as your submitted challenge.

I'm not surprised however that this reviewer does not like such caches (I guess he also would reject a challenge cache like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4BNQQ_challenge-mit-20-uber-300?guid=a63b9f36-412d-41c8-b8b7-7a0c16c257ed )

Did the reviewer direct you to a statement of the guidelines which he thinks that implies that your challenge cache is not conforming to the guidelines?

 

(If you prefer, you can write me a personal mail in German.)

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Hi npg,

 

I checked out your account and saw that a response from the Appeals Team was sent to you on Oct 21st. You may want to check your spam folder for your e-mail to see if you can find the response. If not, I'll be happy to re-send it to you.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi npg,

 

I checked out your account and saw that a response from the Appeals Team was sent to you on Oct 21st. You may want to check your spam folder for your e-mail to see if you can find the response. If not, I'll be happy to re-send it to you.

I checked the Spamfilter in the last weeks.

Maybe it was lost as i was in Germany and offline for some days at 22 to 24.110

 

So, re-sending would be nice.

thx npg

Share this post


Link to post

Done! :)

Thx!

It's not a reply to my mail or my Request i think (the mail was sent from the correct adress) - so there somewhere in the database exist a wrong e-mail (i sometimes mistyped it - but on my profile only the real are visible).

For the Question about the supportform im this case this is also the answer (get deleted while the case was closed before) - or is there a bug?

 

anyway... so my final sentence of the intro is fact : '....any (edit:Challenge-)Cache who deals with Caches not found for some time is for now on against the Guidelines)'

 

thx npg

Share this post


Link to post

any (edit:Challenge-)Cache who deals with Caches not found for some time is for now on against the Guidelines)'

 

Could Jayme H or a reviewer be so kind and explain this a bit more.

 

I do not have plans to hide a challenge cache, but I cannot find what is stated above in the guidelines (neither in the general ones nor in the chapter about challenge caches) and I'd like to understand the rules. I was aware that one cannot require that the persons doing a challenge have found certain caches in certain time intervals.

 

I wonder whether they should do away with challenge caches (i.e. publishing new ones at all) as the restrictions what is not allowed start to become even more absurd to me as what some challenge cache hiders require for their caches. Somehow it feels a bit like Cacher A gets a challenge cache published and someone complains and then this idea gets forbidden as well and will months later maybe added to the guidelines. Cacher B will learn about the new guideline only when his cache gets rejected as the change has not made public. This system will very likely to a lot of frustration on all sides (cachers, reviewers etc).

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

here the Link to my Request (a Copy of my Request).

in another (austrian) Forum Qualiflyer (quoted reviewer) allowed me to use Quotation of his Note.

 

The final Sentence is NOT a Quotation of the answer from Groundspeak... its my Conclusion - they are concearned that hunting for such long unfound caches would lead to a Competition.

Share this post


Link to post

here the Link to my Request (a Copy of my Request).

in another (austrian) Forum Qualiflyer (quoted reviewer) allowed me to use Quotation of his Note.

 

Thanks - what you provided is about what I had made up myself from what you provided in this thread and the types of arguments I would have used.

 

The final Sentence is NOT a Quotation of the answer from Groundspeak... its my Conclusion - they are concearned that hunting for such long unfound caches would lead to a Competition.

 

But still if they are concerned that this would lead to a competition or have other concerns, I cannot find anything in the guidelines about it and it might be important for other cachers who plan to set up a challenge cache along the same idea that what was feasible in February 2013 is apparently not feasible any longer in October 2013 event though the guideline version from

August 29, 2013 does not say so.

 

Groundspeak owns this site and they are free to make up the rules, but I'd appreciate very much if the rules are made transparent whenever this is possible. Certainly there are cases where flexibility is of advantage and I do understand that the final decision is left to the reviewers/Groundspeak.

 

If however challenge caches like the examples you provided are not accepted any longer as a general rule, the guidelines should be rewritten.

 

The concern about the competition may be valid to a certain extent (some geocachers use almost every aspect of geocaching as a competition), but it is a strange concern when it comes from Groundspeak who changed the guidelines to allow powertrails). There are many further examples that this sort of argument is not very convincing. T5 tree climbing caches e.g. motivate a lot of people to take high risks and go for caches for which they lack the experience. Consequently challenge caches which ask for T5 caches would need to get removed, likewise challenge caches

that ask for a certain number of found caches etc.

 

Personally, I think that the competition among those who are willing to go for lonesome caches or very hard caches (the typical examples for the type of cache useful for your challenge cache) are less competition oriented than the majority of cachers.

 

The number of cachers who will be able to find a cache or to whom a cache will appeal should not have an influence on whether a cache gets published. In my opinion, it suffices if in principle the cache could be found by a sufficient number of cachers. I do own difficult caches which I set up in a way that they will appeal to less than 5% of the local cachers, but the majority of those who manage them likes them.

 

 

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Take a look at the Help Center article for Challenge Geocaches. The principle shows up there a few times:

[...] All challenge geocaches must be in the affirmative and require that something be accomplished. [...]

[...] If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular geocache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the geocache will not be published.

[...]

5. A Challenge geocache based on non-accomplishments, such as DNFs, will not be published.

6. One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge geocache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game.

[...]

Share this post


Link to post

The Challenge Geocache Guideline that was referred to in this appeal was:

  • "A challenge geocache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge geocache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable."

Based on the fact that that in order to complete the challenge, geocachers would have to "compete" to find the oldest unfound caches. Once they have been found, they no longer help geocachers qualify for this challenge. This means that only a few "select" geocachers would be able to log this challenge as found - that wouldn't be a reasonable enough number of finds to justify publication of this cache.

  • "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers."

Share this post


Link to post

Take a look at the Help Center article for Challenge Geocaches. The principle shows up there a few times:

[...] All challenge geocaches must be in the affirmative and require that something be accomplished. [...]

[...] If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular geocache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the geocache will not be published.

[...]

5. A Challenge geocache based on non-accomplishments, such as DNFs, will not be published.

6. One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge geocache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game.

[...]

 

I'm familiar with this article and cited it above.

 

I do not think that any of these aspects applies to the cache submitted by npg.

 

As he has mentioned in his appeal, there are so many caches around that get very few visits because they are remote or take a lot of effort.

This is not about caches with many DNFs.

Going for remote and or hard caches is an accomplishment not a non-accomplishment.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

The Challenge Geocache Guideline that was referred to in this appeal was:

  • "A challenge geocache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge geocache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable."

Based on the fact that that in order to complete the challenge, geocachers would have to "compete" to find the oldest unfound caches. Once they have been found, they no longer help geocachers qualify for this challenge. This means that only a few "select" geocachers would be able to log this challenge as found - that wouldn't be a reasonable enough number of finds to justify publication of this cache.

  • "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers."

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

I do know that there is precedent for caches, but why does Groundspeak think that this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC45AAZ_neglected-cache-challenge-of-the-east-kootenays

and other examples along the same lines appeal to a reasonable number of geocachers and

deny the same for npg's cache?

 

Going for remote and hard caches (there are many of them in Austria and the surrounding countries and in particular in the mountains)

is definitely a personal accomplishment.

 

When certain caches get revisited by cachers going for this challenge, over time there will still be enough caches

available to be visited and every month new caches become eligible and certainly at a higher rate that there are cachers who are eager

to set out for such a challenge. The typical target caches are not extremely well hidden caches with lots of DNFs, but physically demanding and time

consuming caches. I claim that everyone who is seriously interested into npg's cache, would have a reasonable chance to fulfill the conditions and this

chance stays about the same over time (after Winter it should be easier than say in August).

 

It appears to me that what plays the main role is the personal preference of the reviewer. (The involved reviewer is known for not being a fan of caches that involve a lot of work and effort.)

 

I wonder how Groundspeak would react to a challenge cache in very difficult T5 terrain with very easy requirements for the challenge. I guess it would get published despite the fact that

not many cachers are able to cope with such terrain.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

The Challenge Geocache Guideline that was referred to in this appeal was:

  • "A challenge geocache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge geocache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable."

Based on the fact that that in order to complete the challenge, geocachers would have to "compete" to find the oldest unfound caches. Once they have been found, they no longer help geocachers qualify for this challenge. This means that only a few "select" geocachers would be able to log this challenge as found - that wouldn't be a reasonable enough number of finds to justify publication of this cache.

  • "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers."

 

I'm a little confused. Are challenges of this nature not accepted anymore? If so, as of when? My "loneliest cache challenge" - GC4GC8H was published 7/16/2013 with no objection at all from my local reviewer....and trust me....he's a stickler when it comes to challenge caches (not that it's a bad thing).

 

I understand that some challenges of this nature are based on the availability of the kinds of caches the challenge requires as per the area, however, "lonely" caches are created everyday. I suppose I could see how this could be categorized as a competition, but the intent of the challenge is to inspire cachers to visit caches that are seldom found for a number of reasons.

 

Anyway, I'm not objecting to the reviewer's decision to deny npg the publication of a challenge of this nature, as I'm not familiar with the area in any way whatsoever. I am however, curious if this is flat out just not accepted for publication anymore, or if it's just dependent on the area/reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post

The Challenge Geocache Guideline that was referred to in this appeal was:

  • "A challenge geocache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge geocache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable."

Based on the fact that that in order to complete the challenge, geocachers would have to "compete" to find the oldest unfound caches. Once they have been found, they no longer help geocachers qualify for this challenge. This means that only a few "select" geocachers would be able to log this challenge as found - that wouldn't be a reasonable enough number of finds to justify publication of this cache.

  • "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers."

In the answer to me is meaned of generally no challenge with this topic (forgotten or lost Caches) - not if 300 days unfound (425 today in Austria - for 180 days there are around 900...without any Caches in the surrounding Countries (..germany is around 30 miles from this hideout..)-or spreaded all over the world ) - or whatever else.

So this means that hundreds of Cachers will hunt for this Challenge (from zero on...neglected all the thousands that maybe need only some of this stuff....i myself have 23 over 300 days ... - without hunting for them (except since the idea to this Challenge...intersting that such Caches often nearby PTs ... but neglected ,as there are maybe the foundrate in a hour drops to one :P )

 

For the USA the statistic at project.geocaching.com topped out by #10000 at 866 days unfound (i didnt know how accurate this statistic belonging to the API is really)....

the US are 2 1/2 times bigger then Europe...so in Europe maybe #10000 would be for sure over 300 days. (as GC hosts the Data...maybe someone can view at it :rolleyes: )...and there really have to hunt many people for this Caches to lower it , as every day other Caches are unfound for a long time.

What is few...curious.

As there is a Challenge to find at least one Cache in every state of the US- so counting Caches in a much smaller area like Europe is reliable.

 

Not that i think there would really ever be on a Challenge like this be more founds as at my whole other Caches .... i think i need a bigger logbook :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a little confused. Are challenges of this nature not accepted anymore? If so, as of when? My "loneliest cache challenge" - GC4GC8H was published 7/16/2013 with no objection at all from my local reviewer....and trust me....he's a stickler when it comes to challenge caches (not that it's a bad thing).

 

I wonder about exactly the same thing. I would never ever get to visit npg's cache even though I live in Austria.

The involved reviewer is not really familiar with what happens outside of Austria and apparently was not even aware of the fact that such challenge caches exist before npg mentioned them. Challenge caches are not that common in Austria - there exist only very few of them.

The experience of the reviewers with them is somehow limited.

 

 

I understand that some challenges of this nature are based on the availability of the kinds of caches the challenge requires as per the area, however, "lonely" caches are created everyday. I suppose I could see how this could be categorized as a competition, but the intent of the challenge is to inspire cachers to visit caches that are seldom found for a number of reasons.

 

Exactly! And any powertrail or cache series with 10 and more caches and programs like "31 days of geocaching" involve much more elements of competition.

 

Anyway, I'm not objecting to the reviewer's decision to deny npg the publication of a challenge of this nature, as I'm not familiar with the area in any way whatsoever. I am however, curious if this is flat out just not accepted for publication anymore, or if it's just dependent on the area/reviewer.

 

I do know the area and I can assure you that there are enough suitable caches out there. Moreover, if the reviewer had any interest in helping this cache getting published, he could also have suggested some changes. Maybe one could have lowered the 300 days limits a bit or stayed with 13 caches forever.

 

There are so many caches in Austria that cannot be reached for months due to snow and then there are many cave caches that are disabled for about half of the year due to bats etc

 

I think that's quite reasonable to assume that a challenge cache like the proposed one will get at least as many visit as the typical other challenge caches existing in and around Austria.

There will probably more than 10 visits in the first year and probably around ten in the following years when the interested locals have already succeeded.

 

The cache is not far for cachers from e.g. Germany and the Czech Republic which will add to the audience for the cache.

 

I could understand objections against such a cache in the city of Vienna as there are much fewer caches available that are unfound for long periods and do not have any issues.

In the region where npg lives, the situation is very much different.

 

Of course npg's cache will not receive 100 visit per year, but none of his cache and none of my caches belongs to that latter category. An average of 10 visits per year should be ok in my opinion even for a challenge cache.

 

When someone submits a challenge cache asking for a complete grid, no one really cares about whether there are caches for each combination in each area. For certain combinations people need to travel long distances, e.g. 1/4.5 is a combination that is hardly available in the area where a German friend of mine lives, but that's part of the involved challenge.

 

Challenge caches are liked by their fans because they involve a challenge. If it is about providing as many people as possible with the chance to find a cache, then one would hide a traditional.

 

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Well put Cezanne. It's unfortunate that a portion of the community feels that challenges are "silly and pointless". I fear the Groundspeak is heading in the same direction too, as the challenge guidelines get more restrictive as time goes on. I understand that some challenges are just unattainable and that the stars may have aligned just right for the CO that put that one out to qualify, and those types of challenges should not be published. But challenges like this....I do not see any issue with why it would not be permitted. I had a blast qualifying for the challenge before I placed the cache. I also saw that there's at least 3 challenges of this nature in New York (USA) and every time I've been to New York, I've still managed to make a find on a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months or more. So the numbers of lonely caches in the Mid-Atlantic USA region are plentiful and I'm assuming that's why there's so many of these types of challenges here. I suppose to a reviewer who is not familiar with this type of challenge, or challenges in general, there could be reason for that particular reviewer to have the opinion that this one does. So I can see it from each point of view. Maybe this reviewer should've made more of an effort to look in the area at cachers who already qualify and the amount of caches in that area that could be used to qualify for the challenge before denying publication.

 

Either way though, I'm still hoping Jayme H. will respond to my question which is - Are these types of challenges not allowed anymore, or are they area/reviewer specific?

Share this post


Link to post
I'm familiar with this article and cited it above.

 

I do not think that any of these aspects applies to the cache submitted by npg.

Oops. I got this Challenge Cache discussion confused with another one. The real issue is the one mentioned by Jayme H:

 

The Challenge Geocache Guideline that was referred to in this appeal was:

  • "A challenge geocache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge geocache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable."

Based on the fact that that in order to complete the challenge, geocachers would have to "compete" to find the oldest unfound caches. Once they have been found, they no longer help geocachers qualify for this challenge. This means that only a few "select" geocachers would be able to log this challenge as found - that wouldn't be a reasonable enough number of finds to justify publication of this cache.

  • "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers."

Share this post


Link to post
I'm familiar with this article and cited it above.

 

I do not think that any of these aspects applies to the cache submitted by npg.

Oops. I got this Challenge Cache discussion confused with another one. The real issue is the one mentioned by Jayme H:

 

The Challenge Geocache Guideline that was referred to in this appeal was:

  • "A challenge geocache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge geocache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable."

Based on the fact that that in order to complete the challenge, geocachers would have to "compete" to find the oldest unfound caches. Once they have been found, they no longer help geocachers qualify for this challenge. This means that only a few "select" geocachers would be able to log this challenge as found - that wouldn't be a reasonable enough number of finds to justify publication of this cache.

  • "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers."

 

As the issues above are concerned, I provided arguments above in case npg's arguments were not well understood enough as he is not used to arguing in English.

 

Like another poster in this thread I'd like to know why numerous challenge caches of the same type have been published (also this year) and if from now on no further such challenges will be published or whether this is just a regional decision and depends on the local reviewer(s).

 

It seems to me that the local reviewer has detected the appeals process as something to use when he is not quite sure about a cache and what the guidelines mean (I was told that he wrote something along these lines in a local forum). The way Groundspeak deals with the appeals process is different: they change a no to a yes only in very rare cases regardless of the issue because they typically assume that if a reviewer directs a cacher to appeals his decision is a firm "no". What the reviewer wrote and his ignorance of other challenge caches of the same type and the fact that apparently he did not even look at those caches (I assume this from his reviewer note) does make me believe that he would not have published any of the existing challenge caches of the same type. If he had the freedom to do so, he also would not publish difficult puzzle caches and other caches that do not receive 100 visits per year. He thinks that caches are hidden to be found by many, something I do not agree with at all.

 

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

It's not unusual for guideline interpretations to evolve over time, and the challenge cache guidelines are no exception. Reviewers try their best to act consistently and to follow the latest advice from Geocaching HQ. Sometimes that leads to confusing results. Another reviewer may have missed a Memo and published something that the rest of us aren't, as was discussed in a recent thread about buried caches. Or, Groundspeak can adjust their guidance as we all learn from experience. Here, the reviewer was doing a great job by paying attention to current guidance -- NOT acting on their own.

 

This is why we have the concept of "grandfathered caches." This is why the guidelines say that the publication of any one cache does not serve as precedent for any later cache.

 

All that said, back on topic, yes the appeals process works for ALL members, basic or premium. At some times it takes longer than others to get an answer back, which is why the automatic acknowledgment is sent. It is best to append comments onto an existing ticket rather than opening duplicates about the same subject if an answer isn't received.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not unusual for guideline interpretations to evolve over time, and the challenge cache guidelines are no exception. Reviewers try their best to act consistently and to follow the latest advice from Geocaching HQ. Sometimes that leads to confusing results. Another reviewer may have missed a Memo and published something that the rest of us aren't, as was discussed in a recent thread about buried caches. Or, Groundspeak can adjust their guidance as we all learn from experience. Here, the reviewer was doing a great job by paying attention to current guidance -- NOT acting on their own.

 

This is why we have the concept of "grandfathered caches." This is why the guidelines say that the publication of any one cache does not serve as precedent for any later cache.

 

I have mentioned above that I do understand that published caches do not serve as precendents for later caches and that makes sense to me.

 

Could you please clarify how the HQ defines "a reasonable number" as this might be the issue at heart of this discussion here.

 

If several hundred cachers from the country where the challenge cache gets published and the neighbouring countries are able to fulfill the requirements or fulfill them already, is that enough? What's the lower limit? I'm aware that no fixed number can be given, but just provide something that will give others a feeling.

 

What is the average rate of visitors per year the HQ wants to have for a challenge cache that still gets published (if everything else is ok as well)?

 

I think that answers to these questions will be helpful for those who want to come up with challenge caches. It also reduced the burden on the reviewers if it gets better known what is feasible right now and what is not feasible any longer.

 

It is clear to me that a challenge cache with requirements that are only fulfillable by 5 cachers from a large region will have no chance. But say 100 potential visitors is reasonable in my opinion, but apparently not for Groundspeak.

 

I'd prefer to have a litte bit more guidance available as the "reasonable" of one person will be the "not reasonable" of another one.

 

So how do you as a reviewer determine if the condition about the reasonable number is fulfilled? Does it depend on whether you fulfill the requirement or would like to fulfill it?

Do you take a random sample of friends? Or what else? I'm just curious as I want to understand the process.

 

If I take my own example, I can assure you that I would be able to fulfill the criteria of npg's cache as there are lonesome caches available with T-rating not higher than 3 which is manageable for me while all challenge caches that require T=4.5* and T=5* caches are unreachable for me and I'm not the only one in this group. There are many caches in my country like this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCR2AR_hanschen-klein

which is very nice and simple cache in a quite remote area where no cachers live.

(The puzzle is trivial and not the reason for the small number of visits - the nearby multi cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC35VH1_vom-jauriskampel-zum-kleinhansl-oder-andersrum

does not get more visits).

 

Sometimes such caches do not get visits for a few years even though everything is ok. This year the caches mentioned above got only one visit by a father and his son, in some years there are no visits at all. There a lots of caches like this one and there are more of them than cachers willing to go for such caches. So there would not be a real competition about long unfound caches. So I think that the concerns of HQ are not valid given the local situation. What is certainly true is that the average modern cacher will not go for such caches at all as it requires both a long drive and a long hike and the reward will be just a single found it log.

 

Publishing challenge caches like the one by npg would also help a lot owners of trackables which get stuck in remote caches. Hardly any cache hider will set out for a long hike just to rescue a trackable if everything is ok with the cache. Often cachers leave trackables without being aware that certain caches get very few visits (without any obvious reason). So instead of ending up in some negative competition and having cachers that find a long unfound cache as winner, the real winner would be the community and in particular owners of trackables. There are not many challenge caches that really make sense in a country like Austria apart from pleasing the ego of certain cachers, but the one by npg if formulated properly would have a positive effect for those who feel that there forgotten caches that deserve more attention.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

....

All that said, back on topic, yes the appeals process works for ALL members, basic or premium. At some times it takes longer than others to get an answer back, which is why the automatic acknowledgment is sent. It is best to append comments onto an existing ticket rather than opening duplicates about the same subject if an answer isn't received.

as Jayme H said.

 

The answer i got to a once wrong entered e-mailadress is a answer to my or a Reviewer-request per mail i think, not the automatic site.

So- the from me entered Ticker (twice dissapear, so have to open aduplicate :rolleyes: ) was deleted because answer was sent per mail ? - or as Cezanne mentioned sometimes get lost?

Share this post


Link to post

At some times it takes longer than others to get an answer back, which is why the automatic acknowledgment is sent. It is best to append comments onto an existing ticket rather than opening duplicates about the same subject if an answer isn't received.

 

This is of course the best and quite natural a thing to do, but it requires that the ticket is still there at that point of time. It happened to me and others that the ticket disappeared mysteriously and then one neither can add something nor will receive any answer if the ticket has not been handled before it disappears.

 

It happened to me that a ticket got lost (I received an acknowledgement and it has been there for a few days as I checked the link regularly, but then suddenly it was not there any longer) and I was told by Groundspeak that this has happened before to others as well.

 

So I would recommend to rather use e-mail than the contact system which does not seem reliable to me.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×