Guidelines...

[+MKFmly]

JPresto

 

Back to the first point, for what I see each geocacher feels that he should play the game the way he wants but the fact is, the game should be played the way Groundspeak wants! This is my point of view!

You suggest that "the game should be played the way Groundspeak wants". Fair enough, but what is that? In all posts on this forum it is the posters "interpretation" of what Groundspeak wants. In response to an earlier comment there were at least three different "interpretations" of the "spirit and intent" behind a quoted guideline. It is presumptuous for anyone to categorically state THEIR "interpretation" is the only valid "way Groundspeak wants".

 

Example: A cop can see you speeding and not fine you. In this case the cop is disobeying 2 laws, one by not applying the law (misconduct) and another by defrauding the government (collusion), you only disobeyed one, speeding. A reviewer can know you place a buried cache and allow you...See my point?

The idea that if you are a witness to some perceived wrongdoing and don't "do something" you are automatically complicit in that wrongdoing is not accurate. Unlike the police, there is no common law, statutory requirement, or "duty to act" imposed on geocachers. That is why some are called cache cops because they feel a self-imposed "duty to act" to uphold their "interpretation" of "what Groudspeak wants" where no such duty is imposed on them by Groudspeak or other cachers.

 

Most sports have Federations/Associations that manage that sport´s rules. In this case our Federation/Association is Groundspeak which is privately owned, like most Federations/Associations:

 

Soccer - FIFA

Basketball - FIBA or NBA

Tennis - ITF

Golf - R&A or PGA

Another analogy that does not quite hold up. There are competing international, national, provincial, state, and local sport governing bodies with rule variations and procedures to make the sport work for them.

Regardless, geocaching is not a sport but a leisure activity. Any federations/associations do not (and should not) regulate the local non-organized, non-competitive, physical activity of a local pick up soccer game in the park...

 

To suggest there is only one way, with various other documented geocaching listing services and groups participating in the leisure activity is disingenious.

 

Let´s put Soccer, just as an example: If you throw yourself to the floor pretending to have been fouled you get a Yellow card. This rule was made up not long ago because players would try and trick the referee simulating that the other player tackled them when that wasn´t the fact. This is a clear example of 1) players trying to bend the rules and 2) the rules adapting to the new situations.

Again, geocaching is not a sport but a leisure activity. Did this rule change make for a better game? Would this "rule change" have come about without someone pushing the guidelines? Which came first the chicken or the egg?

 

Many believe that rugby was born in 1823 when William Webb Ellis "with fine disregard for the rules of football (note that football was yet to split into the various codes) as played in his time at Rugby school, first took the ball in his arms and ran with it, thus originating the distinctive feature of the Rugby game".

Again I ask, what type of player you are? And why do you think guidelines are not rules?

The act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party (Groundspeak) is not thoughtcrime. Most guideline creep has been used as an opportunity to preserve and improve the game, however the ruling party (Groundspeak) has made many "better mistakes" that have needed correction and introduced collateral damage with some of those corrections. Challenging the rationale and purpose of the guidelines, and pushing the bounds of those guidelines, makes for a better game.

[+ngrrfan]

I don't think a cacher is being a cache cop by questioning how a guideline was 'bent' to a situation until that cacher makes a habit of looking for and making a big deal of every variance. Or gets on a crusade with her own agenda, gleefully reporting every guideline variance (or outright violation), seeing it as their duty to 'clean up' or 'save' the game. The worst of those seem to want everyone to cache by their personal interpretation of the guidelines. Reviewers are given discretion for a reason. One exercise of that discretion may be to turn a bind eye to an egregious guideline violation.

 

Only extremists see the world in black or white... for most of us for most issues the answer is somewhere in the gray area.

We have a cacher in our area that does this, reporting every little variation and asking for archival of "offending" caches. They've already ruined at least two good TB hotels.

[+sbell111]

I´m not saying they aren´t helpers/advisors sometimes... I´m saying that their main activity is guideline enforcing. For me it should be the other way around, and I´m saying that this fact is mostly because of us, the players, not all of us... but most of us, unfortunately!

 

Sure I speak for the reviewers I deal with, I can´t speak about the ones I don´t know nor deal with.

 

EDIT: Just one more thing, most if not all reviewers are also geocachers!

I suspect that it's just a matter of perception. From a reviewer's point of view, I bet that the focus is on getting caches listed. It's just that part of that process is a guidelines review.

One data could clear this point out:

 

"number of caches not approved to publish" vs "number of cases where geocachers asked for help before sending the cache for approval"

 

But I suspect we will never have that...

I don't think that this information would really give you the answers that you are looking for. The two numbers really seem to be largely unrelated and they would tend to speak more to the geocachers than the reviewer, in my opinion.

Just a curious case of "published caches" vs "refused caches" would be nice for analysis.

Even this comparison speaks more to the geocachers than the reviewer. Further, we wouldn't know if a reviewer had a low 'denied' ratio because he was actively working with cachers to get their caches to meet the guidelines or if he was simply taking the path of least resistence and approving questionable caches.

But I suspect that many caches need a "reviewer note" from the reviewer before being published... Even more in countries where geocaching is not big (like Brazil where I geocache) where some people place caches before knowing and understanding the game. I published my first cache only after 300 finds because I wanted to understand the game before placing any cache... and even after that, my first Multi-cache had some "reviewers notes" before being published, because it didn´t respect the guidelines. I corrected the mistakes and it was published.

I believe that reviewers would need to take a more careful review of caches whose owners are less experienced in the game and don't have a track record of submitting caches that meet the guidelines. For an area that is still in the early stages of growth, that pretty much means that every cache submission would need a more careful reviewer. That's actually a good thing, in my opinion.

Just for you to have an idea how small the game is in Brazil, there are today 12 (twelve) players in Brazil with more than 200 registered finds and only 7 (seven) with more than 300 registered finds! Total active caches is around 2000 (two thousand)...

You have around 750 caches within 50 miles. When I began playing the game, I think that there were something like 5 caches within 50 miles. I understand the concept of the game being 'small'. The level of support available on the site and through the reviewers is massive now compared to way back then. Further, the listing guidelines have been improved so much that I have trouble understanding why anyone would have trouble getting a cache listed, if he actually read the guidelines.

[+JPreto]

Thanks you very much for your input... A grounded opinion!!!!

 

You suggest that "the game should be played the way Groundspeak wants". Fair enough, but what is that? In all posts on this forum it is the posters "interpretation" of what Groundspeak wants. In response to an earlier comment there were at least three different "interpretations" of the "spirit and intent" behind a quoted guideline. It is presumptuous for anyone to categorically state THEIR "interpretation" is the only valid "way Groundspeak wants".

The original post says it all... If there isn´t even an agreement if the Official Guidelines are geocaching laws or just some recommendations how the game should be played why shouldn´t everything else be opened to interpretation? That is why I opened this topoc, to understand how the forum users think about it... And I am aware that most geocachers are not forum users so, it has the importance that it has...

 

I always express my own opinion, not trying to make a rule out of it... because for some there are geocaching rules, for others only recommendations, for others there are reviewers that don´t allow them to be creative... Pick a color, you will find someone that likes the same color you have chosen!

 

My vision of geocaching and my interpretation is just that, my vision/opinion and my interpretation.

 

The act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party (Groundspeak) is not thoughtcrime. Most guideline creep has been used as an opportunity to preserve and improve the game, however the ruling party (Groundspeak) has made many "better mistakes" that have needed correction and introduced collateral damage with some of those corrections. Challenging the rationale and purpose of the guidelines, and pushing the bounds of those guidelines, makes for a better game.

I also understand that most creation comes from trying to what others didn´t do before or:

 

"Imagination is the beginning of creation" - G. B. Shaw

"Only Dead Fish Go With The Flow" - ????

 

But I prefer:

 

"Have no fear of perfection, you will never reach it!" - Salvador Dali

 

What I mean with this is that, like other sports, I believe that geocaching can be a great game to be played by all ages, with different goals and it doesn´t even have to be scored (like some believe is the goal) and would like to see it played the way it was intended, otherwise call it another thing, like "Waymarking", I really feel it is a variation of the geocaching game, for people that didn´t want or didn´t like to place containers.

 

Fact is, more and more geocacher´s associations are being made and this, wanting or not, will make the way people geocache different in one place from the other. Local rules will increase and the way geocache is played among different societies will change.

 

Just an example, the sub-game FTF, never adopted by Groundspeak but the fact is, almost everybody that is a FTF in a cache writes it on the log and somehow makes a count of those "rare" geocaches... "rare" because in some countries is very rare, here in Brazil it´s common... Right now I have 2 caches within 4 km placed over 2 weeks that are still to be found, no one goes to them running like in other places.

 

Thing is, and my first topic asked just that:

 

Geocaching guidelines proposed by Groundspeak are to be followed as rules for the Geocaching game in the listing site "www.geocaching.com"?

[+bflentje]

90% of this thread is absolutely laughable.

[+JPreto]

Just a curious case of "published caches" vs "refused caches" would be nice for analysis.

Even this comparison speaks more to the geocachers than the reviewer. Further, we wouldn't know if a reviewer had a low 'denied' ratio because he was actively working with cachers to get their caches to meet the guidelines or if he was simply taking the path of least resistence and approving questionable caches.

Correct! The topic is about geocachers and I am interested in how geocachers behave, understand and apply the guidelines of the game, not on how reviewers act upon the guidelines.

 

Further, the listing guidelines have been improved so much that I have trouble understanding why anyone would have trouble getting a cache listed, if he actually read the guidelines.

My point here!!!! The problem is, if the guidelines are "only" recommendations why should you read them?

 

I can use my motorbike to take water out of a well and not to ride it, right? Does the manufacturer recommends that use? If I am buying a motorbike for that purpose why should I read the ridding recommendations? Am I interested in wearing a helmet and knowing the ridding laws or traffic signs?

Edited August 19, 2014 by JPreto

[+tozainamboku]

Back to the first point, for what I see each geocacher feels that he should play the game the way he wants but the fact is, the game should be played the way Groundspeak wants! This is my point of view!

You're pushing buttons again. I'm tempted to say somethig about the boys from Brazil following orders, but it seems too early in this thread to be invoking Godwin's law.

 

I guess my background is to question authority rather than to automatically acquiesce to it. Sure, as a private company, Groundspeak can set rules for the use of their website. They have decided to set guidelines for what geocaches can be listed on their website and have designated the reviewers to be gatekeepers of what caches are published or not. What is clear is that some of the guidelines are open to interpretation. Different reviewers may make different decisions, and reviewer decisions can be appealed to Groundspeak.

 

It is also clear that Groundspeak sometimes makes suggestions on how the game is played. Sometimes these suggestion are called rules - in roughly the same way that Monopoly or solitaire have "rules". Many people play these games using their own version of these rules. The publishers of the rules know very well that variations of play happen and nobody gets shot for breaking the rules. Not even FIFA believes it can or should enforce its rules on a friendly pickup games of soccer. It is in Groundspeak's interest to keep the activity of geocaching a light fun activity and not some competition with rigorous rules.

 

Groundspeak has delegated to cache owners the responsibility for quality control of what is posted on their cache pages. That responsibility gives cache owners that ability to delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. Over time some cache owners have abused this power and Groundspeak has had to add guidelines which limit when a cache owner may delete logs. Some people believe that caches owners are not following the guidelines if they don't delete certain logs. However, with the exception of certain couch potato logs on virtual caches, I am unaware of any action taken against a cache owner who accepted logs that others may find questionable. While the newer guidelines specifically allow cache owenrs to delete logs by someone leaving a throwdown or who hasn't signed the physical log, no one that I know of has beed forced to delete these logs. I believe that Groundspeak has no reason to require logs be deleted.

[+JPreto]

However, with the exception of certain couch potato logs on virtual caches, I am unaware of any action taken against a cache owner who accepted logs that others may find questionable.

If you consider archiving a cache as "taking action against a cache owner" I know some cases... But it wasn´t Groundspeak, it were the reviewers!

 

While the newer guidelines specifically allow cache owenrs to delete logs by someone leaving a throwdown or who hasn't signed the physical log, no one that I know of has beed forced to delete these logs. I believe that Groundspeak has no reason to require logs be deleted.

Do they? Where are those guidelines??? I can "just" find an article in the Help Center!

 

Anyway, does this somehow relates to the "Do you see guidelines as rules or not" initial question?

[+sbell111]

My point here!!!! The problem is, if the guidelines are "only" recommendations why should you read them?

Here, I suspect is the entire disconnect in this thread.

 

You believe that the guidelines are mere recommendations and you are assuming that everyone else agrees with you. You might take note that while we are in the habit of calling this document 'the guidelines', it's actual name is the 'Geocache Listing Requirements and Guidelines'. Anyone who is confused about TPTB's intention regarding this document due to their use of the word 'Guidelines' should certainly be brought back to track by the use of the word 'Requirements'.

 

To your question, there are a few good reasons why a geocacher should bother to read this document.

• If the reviewer believes that your cache submittal is in violation of the guidelines, they will decline to list it.
  
• If it later comes to a reviewer's attention that the cache violates the guidelines, then the reviewer may archive it. The reviewer is also likely to take a more careful review of your future submittals.
  
• The guidelines exist to protect the game. Cachers who wish for a healthy game moving forward should strive to meet the guidelines.
  

[cezanne]

So what do you think of this Help Center article, just to put out an example.

 

Is it something you should follow, like a rule or just a idea? I see it as a rule!

 

For me the statements of this article are at different levels. I never would leave a throwdown and never considered doing so in those many years where no such

article existed and the term throwdown in geocaching was not a commonly used and widely known term.

 

If someone happens to leave an unauthorized container for one of my caches I would tell this cacher and the public (via a note) that I do not appreciate throwdowns.

Moreover, if this person claimed a find or asked me for my permission to log a find, I would answer that I'd prefer a DNF or note. In most cases I would not

delete a find log however if the logger insists.

 

I would however not rush out immediately to remove the throwdown. If it turned out that the original cache went missing and the replacement container is a decent one, I would

leave the container at its place permanently. If it turned out that there are two containers, I either would go remove it or have it removed by one of the next finders (whatever

happens first). I do not own caches that are hidden in a tricky manner. When the target location is reached, the challenge is over. So it does not really matter that much

for my caches if someone would happen to find a wrong container. The cache would not get any easier or more difficult. So there would not be a convincing reason for me

to delete logs by cachers who happen to find a throwdown at the correct location. In any case in more than 11 years of caching, I have not yet experienced such a situation at all at one of my caches.

 

There are more important things in life than rushing out immediately for a hike of several hours just because it might happen that someone

signs a log sheet put out by someone else than the cache owner. For tricky urban caches, this might be an issue when someone intentionally leaves a simple throwdown, for my caches

there is no real issue.

 

The only aspect that plays a role for me is that I do not like if newer cachers get to believe that

throwdowns are something normal. Apart from that I do not care and if you read the help center article carefully, you will realize that it its message is much more ambigious

than appropriate for something which is can be called a rule. If it were a rule to remove a throwdown immediately, there would be no necessity for further discussion what should

happen with future logs.

[+sbell111]

However, with the exception of certain couch potato logs on virtual caches, I am unaware of any action taken against a cache owner who accepted logs that others may find questionable.

If you consider archiving a cache as "taking action against a cache owner" I know some cases... But it wasn´t Groundspeak, it were the reviewers!

I think that you are drawing too heavy of a line between Groundspeak employees and volunteer reviewers. Caches may be archived by either employees or reviewers. Reviewers who archive a cache are clearly doing so under authority received from the company.

While the newer guidelines specifically allow cache owenrs to delete logs by someone leaving a throwdown or who hasn't signed the physical log, no one that I know of has beed forced to delete these logs. I believe that Groundspeak has no reason to require logs be deleted.

Do they? Where are those guidelines??? I can "just" find an article in the Help Center!

Toz quoted the guideline that empowers the cache owner to delete those logs:

As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

Anyway, does this somehow relates to the "Do you see guidelines as rules or not" initial question?

The Geocache Listing Requirements and Guidelines very clearly contain both rules and suggestions. Specifically, which statement within this document are you having trouble with? Edited August 19, 2014 by sbell111

[+JPreto]

My point here!!!! The problem is, if the guidelines are "only" recommendations why should you read them?

Here, I suspect is the entire disconnect in this thread.

 

You believe that the guidelines are mere recommendations and you are assuming that everyone else agrees with you.

 

I have actually have the totally opposite opinion... Did you read my previous posts? Let me just quote myself:

 

Back to the first point, for what I see each geocacher feels that he should play the game the way he wants but the fact is, the game should be played the way Groundspeak wants! This is my point of view!

 

With this, my opinion is that all geocachers, to play the game, should respect as rules all Groundspeak "Guidelines", "Help Center" or "Geocaching 101" the same way, since they all are, quote myself again:

 

Ideas/rules/guidelines made by the people who manage the listings about the game in geocaching.com!

[+JPreto]

I think that you are drawing too heavy of a line between Groundspeak employees and volunteer reviewers. Caches may be archived by either employees or reviewers. Reviewers who archive a cache are clearly doing so under authority received from the company.

 

Groundspeak personal (Lackeys) can undelete logs, reviewers can´t! Lackeys can even undelete logs deleted by reviewers or unarchive caches archived by reviewers.

 

Do you still feel there is not a heavy line between them? I do!

 

The Geocache Listing Requirements and Guidelines very clearly contain both rules and suggestions. Specifically, which statement within this document are you having trouble with?

I was asking about "tozainamboku" post... How does it relate to the topic? Doesn´t really matter it was rhetorical...

[+nosynellies]

 

But my question is, how do you view the guidelines:

 

a- Like a game rule book?

b- Like some orientation ideas?

c- Like some words that idealists wrote?

d- Guidelines, never seen them...

e- Whatever!!!!

f- None of the above, I have another opinion...

 

Thanks for the answers!!!!

Are you sure? It seems an awful lot like you're taking a pretty active standpoint for an argument you seem to make a lot around here for someone wanting to know others opinions. We have disagreed in the past and I will never say that I understand caching in Brazil, but it seems as you have a misunderstanding. You continually talk about rules, give examples of law breaking, and compare this "hobby" to professional sports. As stated by many here with opinions with varying degrees of agreement with you, they are guidelines. I for one don't remember the page entitled "Rules and Laws of Geocaching".

[+sbell111]

My point here!!!! The problem is, if the guidelines are "only" recommendations why should you read them?

Here, I suspect is the entire disconnect in this thread.

 

You believe that the guidelines are mere recommendations and you are assuming that everyone else agrees with you.

 

I have actually have the totally opposite opinion... Did you read my previous posts? Let me just quote myself:

 

Back to the first point, for what I see each geocacher feels that he should play the game the way he wants but the fact is, the game should be played the way Groundspeak wants! This is my point of view!

Honestly, your posts are all over the place. It's impossible to figure your position from one to another. It's almost as if multiple people on your end are writing them just to see how much drama can be created.

 

With this, my opinion is that all geocachers, to play the game, should respect as rules all Groundspeak "Guidelines", "Help Center" or "Geocaching 101" the same way, since they all are, quote myself again:

 

Ideas/rules/guidelines made by the people who manage the listings about the game in geocaching.com!

I'd have to disagree with that last position. Some things are clearly 'rules' and should (must?) be respected by cache owners. Others clearly are suggestions to the community. You will note that most of what is being communicated to cache seekers are not rules, but suggestions because ownership of the actual geocache and management responsibility of the cache listing is the responsibility of the cache owner.

[+JPreto]

Are you sure? It seems an awful lot like you're taking a pretty active standpoint for an argument you seem to make a lot around here for someone wanting to know others opinions. We have disagreed in the past and I will never say that I understand caching in Brazil, but it seems as you have a misunderstanding. You continually talk about rules, give examples of law breaking, and compare this "hobby" to professional sports. As stated by many here with opinions with varying degrees of agreement with you, they are guidelines. I for one don't remember the page entitled "Rules and Laws of Geocaching".

Thanks for the answer! It seems that your opinion is that guidelines are recommendations not to be followed strictly, others think that they are rules not to be broken. Others are in between both...

 

I express my opinion and try to explain my point of view. Others just say the opinion. Others reason about the different opinions...

 

This, I think, is actually the goal on posting in forums, open a question to discussion and share the ideas, right?

[+sbell111]

I think that you are drawing too heavy of a line between Groundspeak employees and volunteer reviewers. Caches may be archived by either employees or reviewers. Reviewers who archive a cache are clearly doing so under authority received from the company.

Groundspeak personal (Lackeys) can undelete logs, reviewers can´t! Lackeys can even undelete logs deleted by reviewers or unarchive caches archived by reviewers.

 

Do you still feel there is not a heavy line between them? I do!

I'm not getting your point on this issue (or the entire thread, actually).

 

The mere fact that all powers and responsilibites are not delegated to the reviewers doesn't mean that none have been.

The Geocache Listing Requirements and Guidelines very clearly contain both rules and suggestions. Specifically, which statement within this document are you having trouble with?

I was asking about "tozainamboku" post... How does it relate to the topic? Doesn´t really matter it was rhetorical...

How does it relate to the topic? It is the topic. Remember this post:

 

But my question is, how do you view the guidelines:

 

a- Like a game rule book?

b- Like some orientation ideas?

c- Like some words that idealists wrote?

d- Guidelines, never seen them...

e- Whatever!!!!

f- None of the above, I have another opinion...

 

Thanks for the answers!!!!

Does not the following response speak directly to your OP:

 

The Geocache Listing Requirements and Guidelines very clearly contain both rules and suggestions. Specifically, which statement within this document are you having trouble with?

 

I'm beginning to think that you didn't create this thread to discuss whether or not the guidelines were 'rules' but instead just to create angst.

[+JPreto]

Honestly, your posts are all over the place. It's impossible to figure your position from one to another. It's almost as if multiple people on your end are writing them just to see how much drama can be created.

 

I´m sorry about that. Maybe it´s just because English is not my first language... and, not even in my mother tongue Portuguese, I was very good in expressing myself with words...

 

I like to play devil´s advocate so it might seem that I have multiple opinions but, from day one, I am 100% pro-guidelines as rules you should respect and follow, to the point of some calling me cache cop!

[+Manville Possum]

Honestly, your posts are all over the place. It's impossible to figure your position from one to another. It's almost as if multiple people on your end are writing them just to see how much drama can be created.

 

I´m sorry about that. Maybe it´s just because English is not my first language... and, not even in my mother tongue Portuguese, I was very good in expressing myself with words...

 

I like to play devil´s advocate so it might seem that I have multiple opinions but, from day one, I am 100% pro-guidelines as rules you should respect and follow, to the point of some calling me cache cop!

I would not use the term "Cache Cop", but you do seem obsessed with demanding that everyone geocache the same way and you are always right. And I do believe that you post your opinions just for the drama.

Guidelines are for reviewers mostly, I can't publish a geocache less than 528 feet from another, but reviewers can and do, so they are breaking the rules too then. I don't understand how a game as silly as geocaching can be so upsetting to you concerning what other players do that does not effect you, other than you just feed on drama in the forums and not geocaching in general.

[+sbell111]

Honestly, your posts are all over the place. It's impossible to figure your position from one to another. It's almost as if multiple people on your end are writing them just to see how much drama can be created.

 

I´m sorry about that. Maybe it´s just because English is not my first language... and, not even in my mother tongue Portuguese, I was very good in expressing myself with words...

 

I like to play devil´s advocate so it might seem that I have multiple opinions but, from day one, I am 100% pro-guidelines as rules you should respect and follow, to the point of some calling me cache cop!

Here's my bottom line on the whole 'cache cop' issue and probably your guidelines=rules issue:

 

In order to be listed on GC.com, a cache should follow the guidelines. If a cache doesn't follow the listing guidelines, you are free to report it. In order to reduce your chances of being labelled by the community, you are free to email your concerns about a cache to your local reviewer or TPTB. Once you've done that, butt out.

 

If people are logging a cache that you own in a manner that you believe is inconsistent with the guidelines or GC101 or the help center by not signing the logbook or throwing down a replacement or being rude on the cache page, feel free to delete their logs.

 

If people are logging a cache that you don't own in a manner that you disagree with, your choices are email the cache owner or butt out.

Edited August 19, 2014 by sbell111

[Keystone]

Groundspeak personal (Lackeys) can undelete logs, reviewers can´t!

This is a misleading statement. It would be more accurate to say that there are limited circumstances in which reviewers can undelete logs. We have the technical ability to undelete ANY log.

Lackeys can even undelete logs deleted by reviewers or unarchive caches archived by reviewers.

I can also restore a log that I deleted or which another reviewer deleted. I can also unarchive a listing that I archived or which another reviewer archived.

 

I am intentionally not posting in this thread regarding the topic/question asked, but I did wish to clarify factual misstatements/ oversimplifications.

[+The A-Team]

 

You know that saying about watching a train wreck...

Edited August 19, 2014 by The A-Team

[+cerberus1]

I can also restore a log that I deleted or which another reviewer deleted. I can also unarchive a listing that I archived or which another reviewer archived.

Tried to say that eight times fast. Flubbed at three.

[+frinklabs]

I treat the guidelines like the Ontario Highway Traffic Act -- something to be probed for weaknesses. The difference is that the enforcers of the guidelines have an easy out with the "no precedents" catch-all, unlike and exactly opposite to codified laws.

 

But I am pedantic and this type of stuff is fun for me.

 

I attempted to get a cache published within a naturist park and at first they tried to hide behind some of the guidelines; finally they admitted that they don't believe naturism is family-friendly and stopped communicating with me. Here's a link to the start of my summary of that interaction:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=277148&view=findpost&p=5375395

[+JPreto]

Groundspeak personal (Lackeys) can undelete logs, reviewers can´t!

This is a misleading statement. It would be more accurate to say that there are limited circumstances in which reviewers can undelete logs. We have the technical ability to undelete ANY log.

Lackeys can even undelete logs deleted by reviewers or unarchive caches archived by reviewers.

I can also restore a log that I deleted or which another reviewer deleted. I can also unarchive a listing that I archived or which another reviewer archived.

 

I am intentionally not posting in this thread regarding the topic/question asked, but I did wish to clarify factual misstatements/ oversimplifications.

 

Thanks for clearing that out... the reviewers I deal with told me they couldn´t that I should report to GS! Maybe they should have answered we don´t want to, ask GS! The log was undeleted anyway but I had to contact GS.

[+cerberus1]

Given a question with options and thanking folks for their answers beforehand was nice.

Arguing each and every point made when folks opined on their options - not so much.

[+sbell111]

Groundspeak personal (Lackeys) can undelete logs, reviewers can´t!

This is a misleading statement. It would be more accurate to say that there are limited circumstances in which reviewers can undelete logs. We have the technical ability to undelete ANY log.

Lackeys can even undelete logs deleted by reviewers or unarchive caches archived by reviewers.

I can also restore a log that I deleted or which another reviewer deleted. I can also unarchive a listing that I archived or which another reviewer archived.

 

I am intentionally not posting in this thread regarding the topic/question asked, but I did wish to clarify factual misstatements/ oversimplifications.

 

Thanks for clearing that out... the reviewers I deal with told me they couldn´t that I should report to GS! Maybe they should have answered we don´t want to, ask GS! The log was undeleted anyway but I had to contact GS.

This might be an English language thing as 'can't' doesn't always mean 'not technically able to'. It might mean 'not authorised to in that situation' or 'I don't believe that it would be appropriate to'.

Edited August 19, 2014 by sbell111

[Keystone]

Groundspeak personal (Lackeys) can undelete logs, reviewers can´t!

This is a misleading statement. It would be more accurate to say that there are limited circumstances in which reviewers can undelete logs. We have the technical ability to undelete ANY log.

Lackeys can even undelete logs deleted by reviewers or unarchive caches archived by reviewers.

I can also restore a log that I deleted or which another reviewer deleted. I can also unarchive a listing that I archived or which another reviewer archived.

 

I am intentionally not posting in this thread regarding the topic/question asked, but I did wish to clarify factual misstatements/ oversimplifications.

 

Thanks for clearing that out... the reviewers I deal with told me they couldn´t that I should report to GS! Maybe they should have answered we don´t want to, ask GS! The log was undeleted anyway but I had to contact GS.

Sounds like you had a logging dispute with a cache owner. Those are handled by Geocaching HQ. Volunteer Cache Reviewers are called that because we review caches, not logs. Logs are an issue between Cache Owner and Cache Logger, for the most part. I don't have the time or the desire to mediate disputes between geocachers, and you couldn't pay me enough to do that. Even Geocaching HQ has recently scaled back significantly on when they will intervene in such disputes. Even the reviewers who are dogs refuse to get involved in log disputes, turning away when bribed with milkbone biscuits.

 

If you are looking for a sport where there is a referee or umpire observing and ruling upon every aspect of game play, try football or baseball.

[+JPreto]

If you are looking for a sport where there is a referee or umpire observing and ruling upon every aspect of game play, try football or baseball.

I thought Groundspeak made the rules, but for what I start to understand they are only recommendations...

[+The A-Team]

If you are looking for a sport where there is a referee or umpire observing and ruling upon every aspect of game play, try football or baseball.

I thought Groundspeak made the rules, but for what I start to understand they are only recommendations...

[+CanadianRockies]

Some people believe that caches owners are not following the guidelines if they don't delete certain logs. However, with the exception of certain couch potato logs on virtual caches, I am unaware of any action taken against a cache owner who accepted logs that others may find questionable.

I know these kind of actions rub you the wrong way, so maybe you've erased them from your memory:

 

Groundspeak has archived some webcam caches when the cache owners continued to accept pictures not taken by the webcams.

 

Groundspeak has archived some traditional caches when the caches have gone missing and the cache owners continued to accept pictures of Ground Zero in lieu of finding a cache.

 

Groundspeak has archived some multi-caches when later stages have gone missing and cache owners continued to accept finds for having located just the first stage.

 

Groundspeak has archived some "pocket caches" when the cache owners continued to accept finds being logged at events.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Groundspeak personal (Lackeys) can undelete logs, reviewers can´t!

This is a misleading statement. It would be more accurate to say that there are limited circumstances in which reviewers can undelete logs. We have the technical ability to undelete ANY log.

Lackeys can even undelete logs deleted by reviewers or unarchive caches archived by reviewers.

I can also restore a log that I deleted or which another reviewer deleted. I can also unarchive a listing that I archived or which another reviewer archived.

 

I am intentionally not posting in this thread regarding the topic/question asked, but I did wish to clarify factual misstatements/ oversimplifications.

 

Thanks for clearing that out... the reviewers I deal with told me they couldn´t that I should report to GS! Maybe they should have answered we don´t want to, ask GS! The log was undeleted anyway but I had to contact GS.

This might be an English language thing as 'can't' doesn't always mean 'not technically able to'. It might mean 'not authorised to in that situation' or 'I don't believe that it would be appropriate to'.

 

There's this one project that I work on where a series of project managers continuously ask if some feature can be added or can something be changed. Yes, technically it *can* be done but my answer is usually based upon whether it *should* be done.

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I treat the guidelines like the Ontario Highway Traffic Act -- something to be probed for weaknesses.

 

And who, other than yourself, does that benefit?

[+tozainamboku]

Some people believe that caches owners are not following the guidelines if they don't delete certain logs. However, with the exception of certain couch potato logs on virtual caches, I am unaware of any action taken against a cache owner who accepted logs that others may find questionable.

I know these kind of actions rub you the wrong way, so maybe you've erased them from your memory:

 

Groundspeak has archived some webcam caches when the cache owners continued to accept pictures not taken by the webcams.

check - I do recall this happening. I don't do webcams so I don't care that much. If the webcam is gone then there is no webcam to find. If the webcam is temporarily out of service and a cache owner is allowing som alternate log, I'm not convinced that TPTB would make the effort to shut it down. They might - and I will say that I think that it's silly for they to get their knickers twisted over this.

 

Groundspeak has archived some traditional caches when the caches have gone missing and the cache owners continued to accept pictures of Ground Zero in lieu of finding a cache. check - but in this case the argument is that the cache owner has changed the tradtional into a virtual cache. I still don't know of case where, if the cache owner eventually replaced the container that the cache has been archived.

 

Groundspeak has archived some multi-caches when later stages have gone missing and cache owners continued to accept finds for having located just the first stage. I'm not actually aware of this case. I suspect that owner could have simply archived the multi and resubmitted the first stage as a traditional. So I'm really at a loss as to what was gained in archiving the cache. I had a multi that a reviewer change to a traditional after a stage went missing way back when a reviewer would do that for you.

 

Groundspeak has archived some "pocket caches" when the cache owners continued to accept finds being logged at events.check - I keep forgetting the pocket cache issue. If I recall there were some "pocket" caches that just rubbed TPTB the wrong way. I found it silly that they made such a fuss.

Sure you can can find cases of caches being archived. With the exception of some the pocket caches (where the actual cachse was still findable) these are achived to lack of maitentance of some form and not because a cache owner doesn't delete the logs. I have seen caches with throwdowns be archived, but not because an active cache owner accepted the throwdown, but rather becasue there was no active cache owner and the reviewer decided that throwdowns were getting out of hand (if the cache is going missing that often maybe it's better to retire it than to have people keep replacing it).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Are you sure? It seems an awful lot like you're taking a pretty active standpoint for an argument you seem to make a lot around here for someone wanting to know others opinions. We have disagreed in the past and I will never say that I understand caching in Brazil, but it seems as you have a misunderstanding. You continually talk about rules, give examples of law breaking, and compare this "hobby" to professional sports. As stated by many here with opinions with varying degrees of agreement with you, they are guidelines. I for one don't remember the page entitled "Rules and Laws of Geocaching".

Thanks for the answer! It seems that your opinion is that guidelines are recommendations not to be followed strictly, others think that they are rules not to be broken. Others are in between both...

 

Let's step outside the world of geocaching for a second and consider the difference between a Guideline and a Rule. If one does a search on the web for "difference between rules and guidelines" you'll find most of the results are very similar. In essence, a guideline is never mandatory. A rule is a prescribed conduct and is mandatory. any violation will attract action.

 

The "Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines" contain both guidelines and rules (I see requirements as synonymous with rules). The Help Center and Geocaching 101 page generally consist of guidelines or suggestions on conduct but as someone mentioned earlier, the language used often doesn't follow standard conventions (who knew there was an ISO standard for that?).

 

If the non-standard language doesn't cause enough confusion, there is the matter of "any violation will action". A couple of other people in the thread have mentioned enforcement and I'd like to elaborate on that as I think it may be key to the motivation for the OP in starting this thread.

 

There are some requirements/rules which are easily enforced. When looking at cache submission a reviewer can easily detect if there is a proximity issue, might be on private property, or is placed in an area with a specific geocaching policy (i.e. some parks or areas require a permit). They can make a reasonable judgement if the cache listing is commercial in nature or creates a perception of an agenda. However, because a reviewer does not (typically) visit the cache location, if a hider omits information about how the cache is hidden (e.g buried, defaces property), the cache still might be published. Once that happens, the enforcement of a rule switches from the reviewer to finders of the cache (although, in the end, and that's where things get dicey. I think we all know how freely some are in throwing around the term cache cop, and it's pretty obvious to me that there is a lot of reluctance to report violations, especially with the "it's all about me caching for the numbers trend". After all, once you've got the smiley, who cares if it violates a requirement?

 

Sadly, there are a few that follow the old adage that "rules are meant to be broken" and double-y so for guidelines. Earlier in the thread, Toz wrote a good post which characterized most of the guidelines/requirements such that the rationale behind them was to protect the game, protect Groundspeaks business model, or to prevent drama between players of the game. If one proscribes to that notion (which I completely do), then to me, it doesn't matter if they're rules, requirements, guidelines. It doesn't matter if they're in the Cache placement guidelines, the Help Center, in the Terms of Service. Whether its enforceable or not, my view is that compliance with a guideline or rule should be done because it's the right thing to do. Maybe some will get their kicks by braking the rules, or ignoring a No Trespassing sign because they can get away with it, but they also may be putting the game in jeopardy for other players.

 

I express my opinion and try to explain my point of view. Others just say the opinion. Others reason about the different opinions...

 

This, I think, is actually the goal on posting in forums, open a question to discussion and share the ideas, right?

 

If only it were that simple. While this thread may have become a train wreck at times, there *has* been a lot of discussion going on and hopefully prompted some to think a little more about the topic. In that sense, I think the thread has been a succes.

 

 

[cezanne]

If one proscribes to that notion (which I completely do), then to me, it doesn't matter if they're rules, requirements, guidelines. It doesn't matter if they're in the Cache placement guidelines, the Help Center, in the Terms of Service. Whether its enforceable or not, my view is that compliance with a guideline or rule should be done because it's the right thing to do. Maybe some will get their kicks by braking the rules, or ignoring a No Trespassing sign because they can get away with it, but they also may be putting the game in jeopardy for other players.

 

To me it matters however a lot whether a statement is a general suggestion or whether it is a guideline/requirement/rule. For example, I rather have a nice cache that conforms to the guidelines hidden by someone with only 20 finds than a lame cache or a rule breaking one by someone with 1000 finds. The recommendation to wait with hiding caches makes sense in general in today's situation as too many hide caches too early, but not everyone is the same and not every cache is the same. In an area with few caches it will not be that hard to hide a hiking cache for someone who has a solid outdoor background (hiking, GPS-usage etc) who knows nice locations and is willing to read the basic guidelines. This person will not need to have encountered the various different types of tricky hideouts, tricky puzzle caches and urban caching in general.

 

I'm strictly against putting recommendations like the statement to wait with hiding caches on the same level than ignoring "no trespassing signs" etc. To me common sense plays a big role and I do not agree at all with the call to simply follow every statement made in the guidelines/help center/geocaching 101 as a kind of geocaching law and I do not think that all statements are at the same level for Groundspeak either.

[team tisri]

For instance, do I agree with GS not allowing physical stages of a multi-cache to be inside the 161m... No I don´t! Sometimes it would be very nice to be able to put multi-stage physical caches inside that area but I will not even try to do it, I know that is the way GS planned the game to be played and I am going to respect that!

I think that a big problem that we have is that people don't actually make much of an effort to understand the listing guidelines. For instance, the guidelines specifically state that physical stages of a multi-cache are not constrained by the 0.1 mile rule:

 

"Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements."

 

The guideines even have a graphic to explain this concept.

 

I remember reading that the idea of the proximity guideline was that it would prevent a cacher finding one cache while seeking another and getting them confused. So in theory you could have two caches within inches of each other if one were a micro and the other an ammo can. Any cacher hunting a film pot would know the ammo can wasn't what they were seeking, and vice versa. In practise it would be a bit daft but given the stated purpose of the guideline (which may have changed since then, admittedly) it would still work.

 

If something has a bit of leeway to be interpreted based on the situation it's good to call it a guideline, with maybe a few examples of how it might be applied (e.g. if a cache is 498 feet from the nearest one but on the opposite bank of a river that's 470 feet wide and more than a stone's throw from the nearest bridge it might still be allowed). It's not good to call something a guideline and then enforce it rigidly - if it's enforced rigidly all the time it's a rule.

[+sbell111]

It's not good to call something a guideline and then enforce it rigidly - if it's enforced rigidly all the time it's a rule.

Again, it should be noted that the actual title of that document that we call the 'guidelines' is 'Geocache Listing Requirements and Guidelines'.

Edited August 20, 2014 by sbell111

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think this also applies in Geocaching, since the cops are the Reviewers, which actually shouldn´t be that but the fact is they are guidelines enforcers instead of helpers or advisers basically because of players that, by not reading the guidelines (even tho they click saying that the cache follows the guidelines) or just trying to bend the guidelines in their favor, make Reviewers what they are today.

I assume you're relating your perceptions about the reviewers with whom you've had dealings and not all reviewers. Our reviewers, for example, are both guideline enforcers and helpers/advisors. Even your reviewers might have worn both these hats when working with geocachers other than yourself. It's also possible that reviewers who have worked with you might remember situations where they've provided you with help and advice, which you might not recall.

I´m not saying they aren´t helpers/advisors sometimes... I´m saying that their main activity is guideline enforcing. For me it should be the other way around, and I´m saying that this fact is mostly because of us, the players, not all of us... but most of us, unfortunately!

 

Sure I speak for the reviewers I deal with, I can´t speak about the ones I don´t know nor deal with.

 

EDIT: Just one more thing, most if not all reviewers are also geocachers!

I suspect that it's just a matter of perception. From a reviewer's point of view, I bet that the focus is on getting caches listed. It's just that part of that process is a guidelines review.

One data could clear this point out:

 

"number of caches not approved to publish" vs "number of cases where geocachers asked for help before sending the cache for approval"

 

But I suspect we will never have that... Just a curious case of "published caches" vs "refused caches" would be nice for analysis. But I suspect that many caches need a "reviewer note" from the reviewer before being published... Even more in countries where geocaching is not big (like Brazil where I geocache) where some people place caches before knowing and understanding the game. I published my first cache only after 300 finds because I wanted to understand the game before placing any cache... and even after that, my first Multi-cache had some "reviewers notes" before being published, because it didn´t respect the guidelines. I corrected the mistakes and it was published.

 

Just for you to have an idea how small the game is in Brazil, there are today 12 (twelve) players in Brazil with more than 200 registered finds and only 7 (seven) with more than 300 registered finds! Total active caches is around 2000 (two thousand)...

 

I think that sbell111 makes a good point. This may just be my impression, but my sense is that most reviewers see their role as "helping geocaches get published" rather than an enforcer of the guidelines. In that case, "published caches" vs. "refused caches" is not all that useful. A "published cache" might exist because after an initial review the reviewer worked with the geocacher submitting the listing (even if the submitter didn't specifically ask for it) to adjust the submission so that it would be in compliance of the guidelines. That might mean a suggestion for a simple change in the cache description language if it was deemed to be commercial in nature or promoting an agenda. It could be a suggestion to move it 50 feet to the north and you won't have proximity issues. For one of my caches, the reviewer simply asked for clarification on the nature of the area because it appeared on the map to be a farmers field. When I clarified that it was on university property and that the university has a liberal policy on the placement of caches on their property the submission was immediately published. "Refused caches" are most likely submissions which have guideline violations and there just isn't anything that can be done, with the assistance/help of the reviewer to bring it into compliance.

 

 

[+JPreto]

For one of my caches, the reviewer simply asked for clarification on the nature of the area because it appeared on the map to be a farmers field. When I clarified that it was on university property and that the university has a liberal policy on the placement of caches on their property the submission was immediately published. "Refused caches" are most likely submissions which have guideline violations and there just isn't anything that can be done, with the assistance/help of the reviewer to bring it into compliance.

In this example you actually informed the reviewer about a question that he had, not the other way around. Right? As you put in this case, you followed all guidelines and the reviewer had a question just to make sure "you knew what you were doing".

 

I also feel that reviewers start to know the "usual" geocachers that try to bend the guidelines, and the ones who try to follow strictly the guidelines. I say this because when I started placing caches many questions would be asked by the reviewers to assure I was following the guidelines, nowadays I don´t get a question at all.

 

I cannot speak for the reviewers nor for other geocachers, I am just giving my example and my opinion on it. And for sure, reality of reviewers can be different according to the culture or geocaching status of the country.

 

Just to give out an example:

 

In Brazil, you can have your cache disabled for 3 months before you get a reviewer 30 days period archival warning. For what I´ve read in the USA this cache disable period is 1 month before you get the archival warning. I think that if the Brazilian reviewers went for the 1 month warning many cache would be archived by now and probably many players would have abandoned the game.

 

What I am trying to say is that reviewers have a great role on enforcing the guidelines and trying to make other players understand the game guidelines but this wouldn´t be necessary if players:

 

1) knew the guidelines

2) where willing to respect the guidelines

3) didn´t try to "trick" the reviewers

 

If all players did these 3 things, the reviewers work would be just helping out players placing their caches because each submission would be approved.

 

I don´t think it is casual that when you submit a EarthCache, even before the "special" reviewer sees the contents of the cache he places a note saying: "Please read the EarthCache special guidelines and do the necessary adjustments". For me this just shows, for me, that most players don´t know the guidelines of the game they are playing... or why would they do "another warning" (the first warning is the extra box you have to tick)?

Edited August 20, 2014 by JPreto

[+sbell111]

I cannot speak for the reviewers nor for other geocachers, I am just giving my example and my opinion on it. And for sure, reality of reviewers can be different according to the culture or geocaching status of the country.

 

Just to give out an example:

 

In Brazil, you can have your cache disabled for 3 months before you get a reviewer 30 days period archival warning. For what I´ve read in the USA this cache disable period is 1 month before you get the archival warning. I think that if the Brazilian reviewers went for the 1 month warning many cache would be archived by now and probably many players would have abandoned the game.

As I understand it, reviewers get no automatic notice that caches have been disabled or that a cache has been disabled for a certain period of time. Further, there is no official period of time that is to be given for a cache owner to clear the issue with a cache, as I understand it.

 

What they do is periodically take a look at the disabled caches to see if any are languishing. If any have been disabled for a period of time that the reviewer finds to be substantial, then they will post an warning note on the page to attempt to spur the cache owner into action.

 

I think that it's important to note that no reviewer wants to archive a cache that is in place but hasn't received required maintenance as it is very unlikely that the cache owner who hasn't bothered to maintain that cache will go out and remove the archived cache.

 

What I am trying to say is that reviewers have a great role on enforcing the guidelines and trying to make other players understand the game guidelines but this wouldn´t be necessary if players:

 

1) knew the guidelines

2) where willing to respect the guidelines

3) didn´t try to "trick" the reviewers

 

If all players did these 3 things, the reviewers work would be just helping out players placing their caches because each submission would be approved.

If those three things were universally done, we wouldn't need any reviewers. Unfortunately, players of this game all come from the subset of 'humans'.

I don´t think it is casual that when you submit a EarthCache, even before the "special" reviewer sees the contents of the cache he places a note saying: "Please read the EarthCache special guidelines and do the necessary adjustments". For me this just shows, for me, that most players don´t know the guidelines of the game they are playing... or why would they do "another warning" (the first warning is the extra box you have to tick)?

Again: Humans, whatcha gonna do?

[cezanne]

What I am trying to say is that reviewers have a great role on enforcing the guidelines and trying to make other players understand the game guidelines but this wouldn´t be necessary if players:

 

1) knew the guidelines

2) where willing to respect the guidelines

3) didn´t try to "trick" the reviewers

 

If all players did these 3 things, the reviewers work would be just helping out players placing their caches because each submission would be approved.

If those three things were universally done, we wouldn't need any reviewers. Unfortunately, players of this game all come from the subset of 'humans'.

 

I do not buy this at all. Already when one looks only at cache saturation, it will be almost extremely hard for almost all cachers in cache-dense areas with many multi caches and mystery caches to not end up with rejections of caches/cache plans. Even for someone like me who is caching since a long time and who has found a large number of caches, there are caches that I will never get to find. In a city like Vienna there are areas where no cache fits at all, regardless in which direction one tries to move it.

 

Moreover, there are aspects of the guidelines that are not so easy to understand, for example which challenge caches are allowed and which are not. Also the commercial guideline is not so clearly defined that it never can happen to an experienced cacher with the best will to end up with a cache submission which is rejected in the way it is.

 

I could list many further examples along these lines.

[+sbell111]

What I am trying to say is that reviewers have a great role on enforcing the guidelines and trying to make other players understand the game guidelines but this wouldn´t be necessary if players:

 

1) knew the guidelines

2) where willing to respect the guidelines

3) didn´t try to "trick" the reviewers

 

If all players did these 3 things, the reviewers work would be just helping out players placing their caches because each submission would be approved.

If those three things were universally done, we wouldn't need any reviewers. Unfortunately, players of this game all come from the subset of 'humans'.

 

I do not buy this at all. Already when one looks only at cache saturation, it will be almost extremely hard for almost all cachers in cache-dense areas with many multi caches and mystery caches to not end up with rejections of caches/cache plans. Even for someone like me who is caching since a long time and who has found a large number of caches, there are caches that I will never get to find. In a city like Vienna there are areas where no cache fits at all, regardless in which direction one tries to move it

 

Moreover, there are aspects of the guidelines that are not so easy to understand, for example which challenge caches are allowed and which are not. Also the commercial guideline is not so clearly defined that it never can happen to an experienced cacher with the best will to end up with a cache submission which is rejected in the way it is.

 

I could list many further examples along these lines.

You get that I wasn't seriously suggesting that TPTB do away with reviewers (other than Keystone), right? My underlying point was that the three requirements of all cachers that were being suggested by JPreto could never be universally fulfilled.

[+SwineFlew]

I am at B and C.

 

The only rules GS shouldn't bend is the .10 rule and powertrails. Oh wait, did they changed that last rule?

[cezanne]

You get that I wasn't seriously suggesting that TPTB do away with reviewers (other than Keystone), right? My underlying point was that the three requirements of all cachers that were being suggested by JPreto could never be universally fulfilled.

 

Yes, I got the first message and agree with you. I tried to say that even if all these three requirements were met universally (assume that hypothetically), there will still be cache submissions that are rejected/need to be changed due to guideline issues.

[+SwineFlew]

 

You know that saying about watching a train wreck...

Oh yes! I am little late to the game.

[Keystone]

You get that I wasn't seriously suggesting that TPTB do away with reviewers (other than Keystone), right? My underlying point was that the three requirements of all cachers that were being suggested by JPreto could never be universally fulfilled.

 

Yes, I got the first message and agree with you. I tried to say that even if all these three requirements were met universally (assume that hypothetically), there will still be cache submissions that are rejected/need to be changed due to guideline issues.

Thank you for quoting sbell's post, because I otherwise wouldn't have seen it. He's been on my ignore list ever since the famous forum kerfuffle of 2006.

 

Seriously... I think that your posts, and sbell's, and NYPaddlecacher's, are "getting it right" on the balance between requirements and guidelines, in cache placements vs. logging conventions, and so forth. Thank you for your contributions to this thread.

 

I will add that the main reason that I archive unpublished caches is because the owner never responds to my initial note. If they only removed one sentence of commercial content, or moved the cache ten more metres to the west, I'd have published those caches in a heartbeat. But, if the owner doesn't respond to my initial note and a follow up reminder a week later, then I archive the listing after a month of inactivity. That is where most unpublished caches go to die. The "no way" pile is quite small in comparison.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

You get that I wasn't seriously suggesting that TPTB do away with reviewers (other than Keystone), right? My underlying point was that the three requirements of all cachers that were being suggested by JPreto could never be universally fulfilled.

 

Yes, I got the first message and agree with you. I tried to say that even if all these three requirements were met universally (assume that hypothetically), there will still be cache submissions that are rejected/need to be changed due to guideline issues.

 

Why do suggestions such as this (even if rhetorical) have to be the ultimate solution that solves every aspect of a problem. Isn't it enough that a proposed solution to a problem might result in a significant reduction in the number of occurrences of a problem?

 

 

[+sbell111]

You get that I wasn't seriously suggesting that TPTB do away with reviewers (other than Keystone), right? My underlying point was that the three requirements of all cachers that were being suggested by JPreto could never be universally fulfilled.

 

Yes, I got the first message and agree with you. I tried to say that even if all these three requirements were met universally (assume that hypothetically), there will still be cache submissions that are rejected/need to be changed due to guideline issues.

 

Why do suggestions such as this (even if rhetorical) have to be the ultimate solution that solves every aspect of a problem. Isn't it enough that a proposed solution to a problem might result in a significant reduction in the number of occurrences of a problem?

What is the problem to which you refer?

Edited August 21, 2014 by sbell111

[+JPreto]

You get that I wasn't seriously suggesting that TPTB do away with reviewers (other than Keystone), right? My underlying point was that the three requirements of all cachers that were being suggested by JPreto could never be universally fulfilled.

 

Yes, I got the first message and agree with you. I tried to say that even if all these three requirements were met universally (assume that hypothetically), there will still be cache submissions that are rejected/need to be changed due to guideline issues.

 

Why do suggestions such as this (even if rhetorical) have to be the ultimate solution that solves every aspect of a problem. Isn't it enough that a proposed solution to a problem might result in a significant reduction in the number of occurrences of a problem?

Thank you... exactly my point! Increasing the amount of people that follow those 3 things:

 

1) knew the guidelines

2) where willing to respect the guidelines

3) didn´t try to "trick" the reviewers

 

would drastically improve the quality of the game and reduce the work of the reviewers so they could be more helpers and less enforcers... This is my opinion!