+Andromeda321 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." Quote Link to comment
+GilkerscleughCachers Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Gave us a good laugh here. Thanks Quote Link to comment
+Ms.Scrabbler Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I saw this on facebook. If you were not already a cacher or if you were a new free app user, wouldn't you look at any nest and think...maybe it's in there and disturb a real nest. Or sit on a bench, 'this wood is not as solid as it once might have been, lets pull it off and look. Not there, oops, we just broke the bench' And the logging. "You feel like you speak a whole other language, in which “FTF” means joy, and “DNF” means anguish." What that really means is 'I'm too lazy to write anything for something that had hours of thought put into it for the cacher's pleasure. It was a fun list. From #10 on, I was good with. If only cachers saw this list it's fine. But posting it on facebook, well, maybe it's just me. Anything else I write would have to go to a different thread. Quote Link to comment
+T.D.M.22 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face. Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Interesting. What's accepted in the TOS regarding images posted to cache listings? If it's posted there and public , could anyone use it? Or just Groundspeak? ETA: yep saw this article earlier and thought it was pretty cool I do share the concerns posted by scrabblers, to a small degree, but that's another topic for other existing threads that's not specifically related to this article =) Edited May 13, 2014 by thebruce0 Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face. On the other hand, some people might not care if someone takes a picture of them and posts it on a web site. They might let the photographer know that they don't appreciate having their photo published without permission but might not demand that it be taken down. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face. Ya know, maybe we're all grumpy around here, but that is the first thing I thought of. I did some stalking ERRR, I mean research, and the author of that article is in fact the managing editor for Buzzfeed.com, and used to work for Politico. He wouldn't post all those pics without permission, would he? Seriously, I don't think he would, but I'll have to be proven wrong, I suppose. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face. Ya know, maybe we're all grumpy around here, but that is the first thing I thought of. I did some stalking ERRR, I mean research, and the author of that article is in fact the managing editor for Buzzfeed.com, and used to work for Politico. He wouldn't post all those pics without permission, would he? Seriously, I don't think he would, but I'll have to be proven wrong, I suppose. I thought #8 was funny (the photo of a woman searching the butt of a statue) but the next one doesn't send a very good message. "9. Because there's a lot of subtle (and not-so-subtle) rule-breaking involved" It implies that geocachers know that laws are being broken but do not care. Even if that's true, it's not a very good message to be sending about geocachers. Edited May 13, 2014 by NYPaddleCacher Quote Link to comment
+NeverSummer Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 And #20 isn't allowed for a cache hiding spot...amiright? Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) And #20 isn't allowed for a cache hiding spot...amiright? And that may be why the caption reads 'So in cities, only the mailboxes are safe", implying that one can't hide cache on a mailbox. I noticed that in one case the usernames were blacked out but there were numerous other photos where the usernames on logs (and when the were posted) was easily readable. Edited May 13, 2014 by NYPaddleCacher Quote Link to comment
+T.D.M.22 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Ya i did like the one in the statues butt. On the other hand, some people might not care if someone takes a picture of them and posts it on a web site. They might let the photographer know that they don't appreciate having their photo published without permission but might not demand that it be taken down. My concern was not the people, but the photographer. Since Buzzfeed is media, there are different rules regarding permission of the subjects, as opposed to say an advertisement. But someone still owns the picture. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Ya i did like the one in the statues butt. On the other hand, some people might not care if someone takes a picture of them and posts it on a web site. They might let the photographer know that they don't appreciate having their photo published without permission but might not demand that it be taken down. My concern was not the people, but the photographer. Since Buzzfeed is media, there are different rules regarding permission of the subjects, as opposed to say an advertisement. But someone still owns the picture. Ah, ok. Now that you mention it, there were a few photos that seemed familiar. The list also seemed to correlate with a lot of the topics found in this forum section. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Ya i did like the one in the statues butt. On the other hand, some people might not care if someone takes a picture of them and posts it on a web site. They might let the photographer know that they don't appreciate having their photo published without permission but might not demand that it be taken down. My concern was not the people, but the photographer. IBTM to the photography forum. Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Seems to me that two of the caches listed under #6 would not be approved by a reviewer if the reviewer knew what was going on. Quote Link to comment
+Andromeda321 Posted May 14, 2014 Author Share Posted May 14, 2014 So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face. Haha breathe easy- it was a picture indeed that I took (well my brother took on my phone, same thing) and I posted to the geocaching section on Reddit (as you can see on the bottom of the image). When you post something there it becomes public domain. Funny thing is when I posted there several other folks commented their photos were included too that they'd posted at some point on Reddit. I'm not surprised the editor at Buzzfeed would go there to get good pictures so he wouldn't have to worry about permissions. Quote Link to comment
+NJSquirrel Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 #18 almost made me spit out my afternoon yogurt. Too funny Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Nothing about those annoying puzzle caches. Quote Link to comment
+BlackRose67 Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 And #20 isn't allowed for a cache hiding spot...amiright? I know in Canada, Canada Post does not allow caches on their mailboxes. Quote Link to comment
+NeverSummer Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 And #20 isn't allowed for a cache hiding spot...amiright? I know in Canada, Canada Post does not allow caches on their mailboxes. Until I saw what NYpaddlecacher said above, I read #20 to say that mailboxes were the only safe place to hide a cache... But I wonder if it should be read as he said, meaning that they are the only thing in cities that are safe from cache placements. Regardless, I chuckled and shrugged. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 And #20 isn't allowed for a cache hiding spot...amiright? I know in Canada, Canada Post does not allow caches on their mailboxes. Yeah... this is spottily enforced, depending on the province and the reviewer. Quote Link to comment
+TriciaG Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Yeah... this is spottily enforced, depending on the province and the reviewer. I would assume if a reviewer knew it was on a post box, the cache would be archived. But reviewers cannot tell from the listing exactly where the cache is located. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Yeah... this is spottily enforced, depending on the province and the reviewer. I would assume if a reviewer knew it was on a post box, the cache would be archived. But reviewers cannot tell from the listing exactly where the cache is located. No, but the reviewers who find them know where they are located. Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Yeah... this is spottily enforced, depending on the province and the reviewer. I would assume if a reviewer knew it was on a post box, the cache would be archived. But reviewers cannot tell from the listing exactly where the cache is located. No, but the reviewers who find them know where they are located. If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations, please report them to Groundspeak. The reviewers are supposed to be the role models around here, so they shouldn't be letting blatant permission violations go untouched just so they can get a smiley. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Yeah... this is spottily enforced, depending on the province and the reviewer. I would assume if a reviewer knew it was on a post box, the cache would be archived. But reviewers cannot tell from the listing exactly where the cache is located. No, but the reviewers who find them know where they are located. If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations, please report them to Groundspeak. The reviewers are supposed to be the role models around here, so they shouldn't be letting blatant permission violations go untouched just so they can get a smiley. It's not the reviewer's job to patrol geocaches on the ground. They're volunteers. Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations, please report them to Groundspeak. The reviewers are supposed to be the role models around here, so they shouldn't be letting blatant permission violations go untouched just so they can get a smiley. It's not the reviewer's job to patrol geocaches on the ground. They're volunteers. No, but as A-Team said, "If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations" - that implies they review process, and that they're knowingly not applying the guidelines. It has nothing to do with patrolling geocaching on the ground. They do have a responsibility, even though they are volunteers. Edited May 21, 2014 by thebruce0 Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations, please report them to Groundspeak. The reviewers are supposed to be the role models around here, so they shouldn't be letting blatant permission violations go untouched just so they can get a smiley. It's not the reviewer's job to patrol geocaches on the ground. They're volunteers. No, but as A-Team said, "If you know of a reviewer who is knowingly ignoring clear guideline violations" - that implies they review process, and that they're knowingly not applying the guidelines. It has nothing to do with patrolling geocaching on the ground. They do have a responsibility, even though they are volunteers. I'm not a reviewer, so I don't know to what extent they are expected to act as reviewers when they find geocaches published by other reviewers. Quote Link to comment
+Ma & Pa Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 And #20 isn't allowed for a cache hiding spot...amiright? I know in Canada, Canada Post does not allow caches on their mailboxes. I am not sure about that. A local cacher checked with Canada Post a few years ago and it seemed that they had no problem with it. Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I'm not a reviewer, so I don't know to what extent they are expected to act as reviewers when they find geocaches published by other reviewers. I have to assume they're duty-bound to act as reviewers while out finding caches. If a regular cacher logs a Needs Archive on a cache, any reviewer can take a look at that and archive if it's warranted. Why can't the same process be triggered by a reviewer acting as a cacher and seeing the same problem? There's also the matter of optics. What would land managers think of this game if the volunteer reviewers, who are the ones charged with policing the game, knowingly turn a blind eye to guideline violations simply because they weren't wearing their reviewer hat at the time? It would be analogous to an off-duty cop seeing a theft in progress and just walking by saying "Sorry, I can't do anything because I'm off-duty". Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 I'm not a reviewer, so I don't know to what extent they are expected to act as reviewers when they find geocaches published by other reviewers. I have to assume they're duty-bound to act as reviewers while out finding caches. If a regular cacher logs a Needs Archive on a cache, any reviewer can take a look at that and archive if it's warranted. Why can't the same process be triggered by a reviewer acting as a cacher and seeing the same problem? There's also the matter of optics. What would land managers think of this game if the volunteer reviewers, who are the ones charged with policing the game, knowingly turn a blind eye to guideline violations simply because they weren't wearing their reviewer hat at the time? It would be analogous to an off-duty cop seeing a theft in progress and just walking by saying "Sorry, I can't do anything because I'm off-duty". I live in an area where there are two reviewer jurisdictions very close to each other. As far as I am aware, reviewers are assigned to a particular jurisdiction. So maybe they don't want to step on any toes. I really don't know, and I'm not about to grill these people about why they didn't shut down a cache on a mailbox outside their jurisdiction. I suspect that if a reviewer was to act on every guideline violation they stumbled across in the field as civilian geocachers, they'd go crazy and quit in about a week. Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Reviewing process is different than when casual-caching. Much like they prefer cachers resolve disputes themselves than run to reviewers like parents, if they aren't in a "reviewer role", then it's ultimately up to them how "police-like" they choose to be. That's how I see it anyway, based on the reviewers I know and how I interpret their actions. A Reviewer who knowingly ignores or break guidelines should be reported. A cacher who is also a reviewer generally doesn't want to wear that hat while caching, and quite often wants to keep those identities distinctly separate; anonymous, even, to the public. For this very reason. Point still stands: A Reviewer who knowingly ignores or break guidelines should be reported. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 So saw this article on another geocaching forum from Buzzfeed, and clicked, and was gobsmacked to see my photo in it! My friends and I are the ones getting the big cache under the second point, "sometimes, they're easy to find..." Cool. But is it a picture you took? Do they have permission? If not, make them remove it. There are peoe who make their living by taking pictures- people using those without permission (let alone paying) is just a slap in the face. On the other hand, some people might not care if someone takes a picture of them and posts it on a web site. They might let the photographer know that they don't appreciate having their photo published without permission but might not demand that it be taken down. A few years ago I was surprised to see my face staring back at me in an ad for Blackberry phones. The photo was taken during a photo shoot for a geocaching article in Business Week but wasn't used in the article. I guessed several yeas later the same photographer was hired by Blackberry to supply photos for their ad and she used another photo from that shoot. I was more amused than anything and I probably signed some sort of release at the time the photos were taken. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.