Geocachers hiding before finding

[team tisri]

See a new cacher finding your caches? Reach out to them. Offer to go on a cache outing. Throw an event in the honor of new cachers in your area. Get involved. Be involved.

 

Just a word of caution. Sometimes you could be reaching out to a preteen girl or boy who hasn't told their parents that their hiding caches. Suggesting a meet up so you can show them the ropes could get someone into trouble.

 

Which brings me back to the wait period idea. Kids have short attention spans. A 3 month wait period should weed out a lot of the unsupervised kids.

Uhhh...

 

Then methinks Groundspeak should address the user age issue, especially in light of the bad (stupid) press they got over the sex offender/geocaching "threat" to kids.

 

Geocaching.com is a listing service, and has guidelines to protect them legally. We are the community that Groundspeak relies on to keep the game going. There has to be some common ground here about how to keep the game going while making sure that the community aspect of the game is fostered.

 

We're not here to babysit or be parents for some kids with smartphones. The guidelines state that kids must use the site and geocache under the supervision of an adult. If a kid geocaches without that supervision, it isn't my fault; Groundspeak should be looking into how to design the game to deal with this eventuality. Remember, there is a difference between "family friendly" and "kid-friendly" or a "game for kids".

 

But, back to the topic again. Mentoring, community.

 

Whatever the guidelines might say, if you arrange to meet a geocacher to show them the ropes and pick a geocache in a corner of the park as a meeting point, and if it transpires that you're a 42 year old man and the geocacher you meet is a 14 year old girl, all it takes is one call to the police and you've got some explaining to do. "I was teaching her to hunt for treasure". Sure you were. "No, seriously, there are these little boxes hidden in the woods and... ", I'm sure you can see where that would end up, the tabloid headlines and so on. In the eyes of the more sensationalist press geocaching just made the transition from a silly game responsible for bomb scares to a sinister group that involves middle aged men meeting teenage girls in the woods. Throw in the way every once in a while someone leaves a condom in a cache and you just fuel the fire.

 

Trying to strike a balance between allowing younger geocaches to enjoy the game while also protecting those who are considered more vulnerable is the tricky bit. When so many caching events are held in pubs it does tend to exclude younger members, but events in public open spaces are so very subject to the weather. I've often thought it might be interesting to meet up with other local cachers for a bit of company but as a man, given the potential for misunderstanding and false accusations, I'd be very wary of taking a hike into the woods with any woman I didn't know and wouldn't even consider going out with anyone under 18 unless I knew them and their parents and everyone was happy with the arrangement.

 

I must admit I like the idea of a time period before hiding caches is permitted regardless of age. It's easy to comment on the short attention span of children but how many caches are hidden by adults who just had to "have a go" only to realise that going out and maintaining that old takeaway container they finally found a use for is taking up more time than they can be bothered with, or they move on to the Next Big Thing, and so they just abandon their cache(s) until they fall into disrepair and get archived for non-maintenance? The endless push towards instant gratification does leave us with a load of people who want to have a go but don't have any skin in the game, and if they do think it's just a bit of fun to dump a box in the woods and then forget about it then it just degrades the game for everyone else.

[+-CJ-]

The answer is definitely NO. I understand the reasons behind such ideas but please don't forget that geocaching is played in other countries of the world too.

 

In many regions of Russia there are neither geocachers nor geocaches. Being a Muscovite, I feel not really comfortable to place a cache in Krasnoyarsk while being on a business trip there. I could hardly provide a sufficient maintenance plan for a cache placed at a distance of 3,350 km from my home. Now please think about someone from Krasnoyarsk who read about geocaching and wants to play the game. He's not allowed to place his cache because of the suggested "feature". He cannot search for caches because there are no caches in his area. So, how do you expect geocaching being played in this region at all?

 

I would appreciate if anyone who's in favour of some "waiting period" explains me how this proposal will affect the game in my example (in Krasnoyarsk).

[+-CJ-]

Because gc.com's role is a listing service. This role was chosen very carefully (and, in my opinion, very wisely) by the founders. They don't control the caches; they only provide a listing service for those who wish to place caches.

...

Because gc.com is a listing service, the requirement that hiders find a certain number of caches listed by the service before being allowed to list one themselves does not make sense. It amounts to requiring users to make use of the service in a particular way, and would indicate that gc.com is no longer a listing service but has some ownership of the listed caches, which has legal ramifications that they don't want.

 

Very good point.

[+NeverSummer]

See a new cacher finding your caches? Reach out to them. Offer to go on a cache outing. Throw an event in the honor of new cachers in your area. Get involved. Be involved.

 

Just a word of caution. Sometimes you could be reaching out to a preteen girl or boy who hasn't told their parents that their hiding caches. Suggesting a meet up so you can show them the ropes could get someone into trouble.

 

Which brings me back to the wait period idea. Kids have short attention spans. A 3 month wait period should weed out a lot of the unsupervised kids.

Uhhh...

 

Then methinks Groundspeak should address the user age issue, especially in light of the bad (stupid) press they got over the sex offender/geocaching "threat" to kids.

 

Geocaching.com is a listing service, and has guidelines to protect them legally. We are the community that Groundspeak relies on to keep the game going. There has to be some common ground here about how to keep the game going while making sure that the community aspect of the game is fostered.

 

We're not here to babysit or be parents for some kids with smartphones. The guidelines state that kids must use the site and geocache under the supervision of an adult. If a kid geocaches without that supervision, it isn't my fault; Groundspeak should be looking into how to design the game to deal with this eventuality. Remember, there is a difference between "family friendly" and "kid-friendly" or a "game for kids".

 

But, back to the topic again. Mentoring, community.

 

Whatever the guidelines might say, if you arrange to meet a geocacher to show them the ropes and pick a geocache in a corner of the park as a meeting point, and if it transpires that you're a 42 year old man and the geocacher you meet is a 14 year old girl, all it takes is one call to the police and you've got some explaining to do. "I was teaching her to hunt for treasure". Sure you were. "No, seriously, there are these little boxes hidden in the woods and... ", I'm sure you can see where that would end up, the tabloid headlines and so on. In the eyes of the more sensationalist press geocaching just made the transition from a silly game responsible for bomb scares to a sinister group that involves middle aged men meeting teenage girls in the woods. Throw in the way every once in a while someone leaves a condom in a cache and you just fuel the fire.

 

Trying to strike a balance between allowing younger geocaches to enjoy the game while also protecting those who are considered more vulnerable is the tricky bit. When so many caching events are held in pubs it does tend to exclude younger members, but events in public open spaces are so very subject to the weather. I've often thought it might be interesting to meet up with other local cachers for a bit of company but as a man, given the potential for misunderstanding and false accusations, I'd be very wary of taking a hike into the woods with any woman I didn't know and wouldn't even consider going out with anyone under 18 unless I knew them and their parents and everyone was happy with the arrangement.

 

I must admit I like the idea of a time period before hiding caches is permitted regardless of age. It's easy to comment on the short attention span of children but how many caches are hidden by adults who just had to "have a go" only to realise that going out and maintaining that old takeaway container they finally found a use for is taking up more time than they can be bothered with, or they move on to the Next Big Thing, and so they just abandon their cache(s) until they fall into disrepair and get archived for non-maintenance? The endless push towards instant gratification does leave us with a load of people who want to have a go but don't have any skin in the game, and if they do think it's just a bit of fun to dump a box in the woods and then forget about it then it just degrades the game for everyone else.

There seems to be an awful lot of latching onto the pedo possibilities...

 

How about the rest of what I said, like offering help, introducing yourself, having events, getting involved in the community, advocating for a local org or association...

 

I'm not really sure how often you all propose a meet up with a 14-year-old girls as a 43-year-old man, but that ain't happening here. Just a simple email to a user can help find out some of the context, and then we can make legal and moral decisions. It's not like a person would just start an email being as forward as to say, "Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but here's where we should meet up, go caching, maybe?"

[+ADKer]

"Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but here's where we should meet up, go caching, maybe?"

 

[+L0ne.R]

I would appreciate if anyone who's in favour of some "waiting period" explains me how this proposal will affect the game in my example (in Krasnoyarsk).

 

Shouldn't be a problem. Since they are remote they have to exercise some patience to begin with, the visitors to their cache may be few and far between. During the wait period they could familiarize themselves with the site, the app, the help center, prepare their cache, look for a nice spot, figure out how to get accurate coordinates, read forum posts, set up the cache page. If they can't wait that long, the chances they'd make a good long-term cache owner are probably slim.

 

 

[+-CJ-]

During the wait period they could familiarize themselves with the site, the app, the help center, prepare their cache, look for a nice spot, figure out how to get accurate coordinates, read forum posts, set up the cache page. If they can't wait that long, the chances they'd make a good long-term cache owner are probably slim.

 

Thank you.

 

I think it's a limitation based on geography. If you're lucky to live in a country with many geocaches and good geocaching community, especially if English is your first language or you know it well, you're welcome to try the game, read forums, go outdoors for a hunt, listen to podcasts, watch videos, find your first geocache, talk to more experienced players, etc. You've great opportunities to start with. If you live in Kransoyarsk, you have almost nothing. I'm not sure if your proposal helps with what you like to achieve in the US and other countries - perhaps some struggle against lame caches, I don't know. The first and the most clear result of it would be killing the enthusiasm in people around here.

 

What we (a small group of pioneers) do in our country is promotion of the hobby, and that's not easy. Language barrier, huge distances, etc. Things like the proposed waiting period will obviously make our work even more difficult.

[+-CJ-]

Apart from not thinking about the developing countries/regions, I wonder how the proposals like that waiting period corresponds to the presumption of innocence.

 

1. I found 10 lame caches in my city this month. Some of them had been placed by newbies.

2. Let's make all newbies throughout the world (whoever they are) responsible for this.

 

Another question is why people think that keeping someone out of part of the game for a couple of months will make this person a better CO.

 

I can understand those who say "find 20 caches first, then you can place your own cache". They probably believe that seeing 20 caches makes a person more experienced. With that waiting period I cannot understand the idea. "Sit still for three months and your experience will grow dramatically". What experience does this term guarantee? Do you suggest to organize a kind of "geocaching exams" after this waiting period?

 

My kids have no their own accounts at geocaching.com, they just play with me. One day they will probably want to register new accounts. They have long-term experience of finding and placing caches. Will they also face the "waiting period"?

[+L0ne.R]

Another question is why people think that keeping someone out of part of the game for a couple of months will make this person a better CO.

 

It's not about making someone a better cacher but about weeding out the many not-serious cache owners. The fly-by-night, toe-dip, class project, try-this-for-a-lark caches that get placed then promptly abandoned.

When I started in 2002 there were very few caches. We travelled about 350 km over 2 months to find 5 caches. Then after finding a few, familiarizing ourselves with the gps and the website and also feeling ready to commit to the game and take on the responsibility of cache ownership, we planted the first one in our town.

As for your children, check the terms of use. If they are over 13 years old they can post a cache under your supervision. The wait period would help with caches placed by children who are not supervised by a guardian. Personally, I think your situation is ideal since your kids have an experienced responsible geocaching parent. A 2 or 3 month wait period would be part of the lesson in patience and cache owner responsibility.

[+-CJ-]

The fly-by-night, toe-dip, class project, try-this-for-a-lark caches that get placed then promptly abandoned.

 

I feel you're trying to say that struggle against such behaviour in your area is more important than things I talked about.

 

Well, at least people here know that there are votes against the waiting period proposal.

[+stijnhommes]

Although finding some caches can help, I don't feel it's necessary to hiding.

As long as you read and follow the rules and guidelines and are willing to put in some serious effort and creativity, you should be allowed to hide.

[+L0ne.R]

The fly-by-night, toe-dip, class project, try-this-for-a-lark caches that get placed then promptly abandoned.

 

I feel you're trying to say that struggle against such behaviour in your area is more important than things I talked about.

 

Well, at least people here know that there are votes against the waiting period proposal.

 

I don't think my experience when I started is much different then people who live in remote areas. There were no geoches in my town. We had to drive 50+km (over 100km round trip) for our first cache find (everyone of the 5 first caches were at least 50km away). We didn't jump into cache ownership before understanding the game, seeing a few caches and waiting to see if we enjoyed the pasttime It didn't feel that 2 months was a long time to wait before hiding a cache. And waiting 3 months would not have stopped me from playing the geocaching game because I was hooked and knew it was a long term commitment. I'm not seeing how waiting 3 months is going to hinder a responsible, committed-to-game, willing-to-invest-their-time cache owner.

Edited January 5, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+-CJ-]

I don't think my experience when I started is much different then people who live in remote areas.

 

Sorry, but your experience is different. I could ask questions like "Did you live in Krasnoyarsk" or "Is English your first language" but it seems that our discussion will never end then

 

After all, I believe that the approach is not really good in its core. "I think something is going wrong around here. Let's impose new limitations to the whole game to solve the problem. Good fellas will survive in any conditions like we did ... years ago".

 

I prefer to invest in education rather then rely on limitations.

 

BTW, I also started in 2002 (though not at geocaching.com)

[+JohnnyVegas]

My link

 

This was place by a new cacher. when I found it, it was buried so I sent an e-mail and I guess the CO fixed that. But the coordinates are off and the hint has nothing to do with the location.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think it should be a requirement. It would only encourage fake finds, and there are plenty of bad caches hidden by people with thousands of finds. Perhaps they could instead encourage new hiders to find 20 caches with the Needs Maintenance attribute, so they can see what happens to that brilliant idea they may have.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

There are bigger issues with the game than worry about some silly pre-requisite for cachers finding X number of caches before placing a cache. I know of a couple of cachers that have only a few finds and placed great caches, but that is anecdotal much like any other. If the issue was so dramatic, it would have the attention of Groundspeak and they'd make the necessary changes. The forum represents such a small percentage of cachers. Seems like only about 50 or less people post with any regularity.

[team tisri]

See a new cacher finding your caches? Reach out to them. Offer to go on a cache outing. Throw an event in the honor of new cachers in your area. Get involved. Be involved.

 

Just a word of caution. Sometimes you could be reaching out to a preteen girl or boy who hasn't told their parents that their hiding caches. Suggesting a meet up so you can show them the ropes could get someone into trouble.

 

Which brings me back to the wait period idea. Kids have short attention spans. A 3 month wait period should weed out a lot of the unsupervised kids.

Uhhh...

 

Then methinks Groundspeak should address the user age issue, especially in light of the bad (stupid) press they got over the sex offender/geocaching "threat" to kids.

 

Geocaching.com is a listing service, and has guidelines to protect them legally. We are the community that Groundspeak relies on to keep the game going. There has to be some common ground here about how to keep the game going while making sure that the community aspect of the game is fostered.

 

We're not here to babysit or be parents for some kids with smartphones. The guidelines state that kids must use the site and geocache under the supervision of an adult. If a kid geocaches without that supervision, it isn't my fault; Groundspeak should be looking into how to design the game to deal with this eventuality. Remember, there is a difference between "family friendly" and "kid-friendly" or a "game for kids".

 

But, back to the topic again. Mentoring, community.

 

Whatever the guidelines might say, if you arrange to meet a geocacher to show them the ropes and pick a geocache in a corner of the park as a meeting point, and if it transpires that you're a 42 year old man and the geocacher you meet is a 14 year old girl, all it takes is one call to the police and you've got some explaining to do. "I was teaching her to hunt for treasure". Sure you were. "No, seriously, there are these little boxes hidden in the woods and... ", I'm sure you can see where that would end up, the tabloid headlines and so on. In the eyes of the more sensationalist press geocaching just made the transition from a silly game responsible for bomb scares to a sinister group that involves middle aged men meeting teenage girls in the woods. Throw in the way every once in a while someone leaves a condom in a cache and you just fuel the fire.

 

Trying to strike a balance between allowing younger geocaches to enjoy the game while also protecting those who are considered more vulnerable is the tricky bit. When so many caching events are held in pubs it does tend to exclude younger members, but events in public open spaces are so very subject to the weather. I've often thought it might be interesting to meet up with other local cachers for a bit of company but as a man, given the potential for misunderstanding and false accusations, I'd be very wary of taking a hike into the woods with any woman I didn't know and wouldn't even consider going out with anyone under 18 unless I knew them and their parents and everyone was happy with the arrangement.

 

I must admit I like the idea of a time period before hiding caches is permitted regardless of age. It's easy to comment on the short attention span of children but how many caches are hidden by adults who just had to "have a go" only to realise that going out and maintaining that old takeaway container they finally found a use for is taking up more time than they can be bothered with, or they move on to the Next Big Thing, and so they just abandon their cache(s) until they fall into disrepair and get archived for non-maintenance? The endless push towards instant gratification does leave us with a load of people who want to have a go but don't have any skin in the game, and if they do think it's just a bit of fun to dump a box in the woods and then forget about it then it just degrades the game for everyone else.

There seems to be an awful lot of latching onto the pedo possibilities...

 

How about the rest of what I said, like offering help, introducing yourself, having events, getting involved in the community, advocating for a local org or association...

 

I'm not really sure how often you all propose a meet up with a 14-year-old girls as a 43-year-old man, but that ain't happening here. Just a simple email to a user can help find out some of the context, and then we can make legal and moral decisions. It's not like a person would just start an email being as forward as to say, "Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but here's where we should meet up, go caching, maybe?"

 

It's not so much "latching onto the paedo possibilities" as taking basic steps to protect myself and others. The last thing I want to do is arrange to meet a geocacher to show them the ropes and find myself meeting a teenage girl. Truth be told I'd be wary of going out caching with any woman I didn't know, unless it was as part of a larger group. Basic self-preservation requires taking some precautions against a false accusation I've got no possible way of disproving.

 

In the UK forum there is a thread specifically intended for experienced cachers to "adopt" new cachers and show them the ropes. So it's not as if someone is going to come right out and say "hey teenage girl I just met, how do you fancy meeting in some remote corner of the woods", it could easily take the form of "experienced cacher in Birmingham offering tips and tricks" who ends up meeting a girl young enough to be his daughter because he didn't think to check who he was meeting. I've seen several cachers near me pop up and ask for someone to show them the ropes, only to realise that helping them out would involve meeting a woman I didn't know and potentially going somewhere relatively quiet. It's sad we have to think of what could go wrong but I'm not going to take a woman I don't know somewhere quiet because the upside is minimal and the potential downside is immense.

[+Krystal Tipps]

Personally as a relative newbie I wouldn't have considered placing one until I knew a little about finding some. In fact my husband in the ridiculous position of having a cache placed and with the reviewer but it can't go anywhere as there is one already in the system 60 feet away. This has been 'placed' (not yet published) by a person who has placed none, found none, and logged on once in October to, presumably, hide it. It is VERY frustrating as it is a really good place and he isn't answering emails...

[+Ambrosia]

Personally as a relative newbie I wouldn't have considered placing one until I knew a little about finding some. In fact my husband in the ridiculous position of having a cache placed and with the reviewer but it can't go anywhere as there is one already in the system 60 feet away. This has been 'placed' (not yet published) by a person who has placed none, found none, and logged on once in October to, presumably, hide it. It is VERY frustrating as it is a really good place and he isn't answering emails...

Well, if the other cacher doesn't respond to the reviewer, then eventually your cache should be able to be published. Every reviewer is different with how long they wait to see if a dormant cache owner responds - maybe anywhere between 1 week and 1 month? If the reviewer didn't mention this to you, ask them how long they intend to wait to hear from the owner.

[+woodsters]

Should they find a reasonable number of caches? Yes. As the guidelines put it, "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

Should they be required to find any specific number of geocaches? No.

 

Funny...I just noticed a reviewer as to having 13 finds. Yet someone is encouraged to have 20 finds before hiding one.

[+Dgwphotos]

Should they find a reasonable number of caches? Yes. As the guidelines put it, "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

Should they be required to find any specific number of geocaches? No.

 

Funny...I just noticed a reviewer as to having 13 finds. Yet someone is encouraged to have 20 finds before hiding one.

I believe the majority of reviewers have a separate player account. I have a lackey friend that I know does, and they occasionally review caches.

[+Ambrosia]

Should they find a reasonable number of caches? Yes. As the guidelines put it, "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

Should they be required to find any specific number of geocaches? No.

 

Funny...I just noticed a reviewer as to having 13 finds. Yet someone is encouraged to have 20 finds before hiding one.

I believe the majority of reviewers have a separate player account. I have a lackey friend that I know does, and they occasionally review caches.

This is correct. Most reviewers have a separate account for reviewing (although a few use one account for both work and play). I personally have maybe one find on my reviewer account.

[+woodsters]

Should they find a reasonable number of caches? Yes. As the guidelines put it, "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

Should they be required to find any specific number of geocaches? No.

 

Funny...I just noticed a reviewer as to having 13 finds. Yet someone is encouraged to have 20 finds before hiding one.

I believe the majority of reviewers have a separate player account. I have a lackey friend that I know does, and they occasionally review caches.

This is correct. Most reviewers have a separate account for reviewing (although a few use one account for both work and play). I personally have maybe one find on my reviewer account.

 

To the new cacher, they would not understand that. So if they see the reviewer with 1 cache found, then why would they feel the need to find 20?

 

I understand the fact of having two seperate accounts and think it's a good idea. But maybe all the finds should be listed under the player account and not the reviewer account. What purpose does it serve to have it under the reviewer account?

[+Ambrosia]

Should they find a reasonable number of caches? Yes. As the guidelines put it, "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

Should they be required to find any specific number of geocaches? No.

 

Funny...I just noticed a reviewer as to having 13 finds. Yet someone is encouraged to have 20 finds before hiding one.

I believe the majority of reviewers have a separate player account. I have a lackey friend that I know does, and they occasionally review caches.

This is correct. Most reviewers have a separate account for reviewing (although a few use one account for both work and play). I personally have maybe one find on my reviewer account.

 

To the new cacher, they would not understand that. So if they see the reviewer with 1 cache found, then why would they feel the need to find 20?

 

I understand the fact of having two seperate accounts and think it's a good idea. But maybe all the finds should be listed under the player account and not the reviewer account. What purpose does it serve to have it under the reviewer account?

Different reasons, I suppose. One of the finds that I have on my reviewer account is for Groundspeak. I thought that was an appropriate find for a Groundspeak volunteer. The other find (now that I'm looking), has Cascade in the name and that tickled my funny bone. I'm also thinking about logging all the events that I've been to since becoming a reviewer, especially because for quite a few of them I've had my volunteer trackable nametag (and am therefore partly at the event in an official capacity).

 

But I also have an explanation on my profile page if anyone wants to look at it: Cascade Reviewer.

 

(edit for spelling errors)

Edited January 16, 2014 by Ambrosia

[+Manville Possum]

Should they find a reasonable number of caches? Yes. As the guidelines put it, "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

Should they be required to find any specific number of geocaches? No.

 

Funny...I just noticed a reviewer as to having 13 finds. Yet someone is encouraged to have 20 finds before hiding one.

I believe the majority of reviewers have a separate player account. I have a lackey friend that I know does, and they occasionally review caches.

This is correct. Most reviewers have a separate account for reviewing (although a few use one account for both work and play). I personally have maybe one find on my reviewer account.

 

To the new cacher, they would not understand that. So if they see the reviewer with 1 cache found, then why would they feel the need to find 20?

 

I understand the fact of having two seperate accounts and think it's a good idea. But maybe all the finds should be listed under the player account and not the reviewer account. What purpose does it serve to have it under the reviewer account?

Different reasons, I suppose. One of the finds that I have on my reviewer account is for Groundspeak. I thought that was an appropriate find for a Groundspeak volunteer. The other find (now that I'm looking), has Cascade in the name and that tickled my funny bone. I'm also thinking about logging all the events that I've been to since becoming a reviewer, especially because for quite a few of them I've had my volunteer trackable nametag (and am therefore partly at the event in an official capacity).

 

But I also have an explanation on my profile page if anyone wants to look at it: Cascade Reviewer.

 

(edit for spelling errors)

Yeah, different reasons I suppose..............

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=c037b97b-6297-48d5-b6c2-21e51c35544e

[team tisri]

Should they find a reasonable number of caches? Yes. As the guidelines put it, "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

Should they be required to find any specific number of geocaches? No.

 

Funny...I just noticed a reviewer as to having 13 finds. Yet someone is encouraged to have 20 finds before hiding one.

I believe the majority of reviewers have a separate player account. I have a lackey friend that I know does, and they occasionally review caches.

This is correct. Most reviewers have a separate account for reviewing (although a few use one account for both work and play). I personally have maybe one find on my reviewer account.

 

To the new cacher, they would not understand that. So if they see the reviewer with 1 cache found, then why would they feel the need to find 20?

 

I understand the fact of having two seperate accounts and think it's a good idea. But maybe all the finds should be listed under the player account and not the reviewer account. What purpose does it serve to have it under the reviewer account?

 

When I've seen reviewers with a find count above zero it's often because they attended events. "Meet the reviewer" doesn't work unless they are there under their reviewer name.

 

(Although I remember back in the days when yellow Jeeps were quite new, I handed one to someone at an event because he particularly liked them only to later realise the person in question was a reviewer)