Conmercial Guidelines

[+Walts Hunting]

I have no problem with the commercial guidelines. I put out a cache that required a NFC chip and mentioned in the description that androids could do it but iPhones couldn't. I was told to remove the commercial reference (even though it was necessary, I had two people try it with iPHones and wondered why it didn't work) so I did and published. Today I am driving around grabbing a few easy one and come across this one.

 

Located at 1300 feet in the Sierra Foothills, this El Dorado County winery produces fine wines under the David Girard label.

 

11:00am - 5:00pm every Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday

 

The beautiful 85 acre vineyard property bears mature fruit native to the great Rhone Valley. With these extraordinary grapes and winemaking expertise, David Girard Vineyards produces finely balanced wines reminiscent of those found in Southern France.

 

Make a stop, take a picnic, enjoy the scenery and find a cache....sounds like a great day.

 

No need to disturb the plants or any landscaping. Please respect the vineyard

 

How is the world does something like that get published. The Company name is mentioned twice and the cache is on the winery property.

[4wheelin_fool]

Although the Rhone style wines are a focus, a limited amount of classic Bordeaux varietals are also available.

 

They invite every wine enthusiast to visit the vineyard, enjoy the scenery, and taste de exceptional wines.

[Keystone]

1. The quoted cache description was published in 2010. It would have been reviewed under the reviewer's best understanding of the listing guidelines for commercial caches in 2010. The same reviewer, presented with the current description as a new cache submission in 2014, may very well reach a different conclusion.

 

2. The archived reviewer notes tell me that the reviewer did ask the cache owner to remove commercial content prior to publication.

 

3. Who knows what edits may have been made to the description post-publication?

 

4. The publication of any one cache does not serve as precedent for the publication of any other cache.

 

5. The reviewers have received specific guidance about technology issues like phone app mentions, GPS brand mentions, etc. There has not been any specific guidance about vineyards.

 

6. Many reviewers are dogs.

[+Walts Hunting]

Iam thinking that under number 2 the cache owner complied and then redid it afterwards in direct conflict with the reviewers request. Maybe the reviewer ought to go back and re review

 

I never said that a previous cache could be used to justify anything. I can see how someone reading my post might have thought that though.

 

Your research is pretty good. I left out the gc and reviewer on purpose but I suppose if you just put a part of that in google it would come up.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Walts Hunting

[+fbingha]

3. Who knows what edits may have been made to the description post-publication?

 

Really, Groudspeak?

 

You have not created an editlog table that stores a copy of each cache description, as it was, previous to an update? Give reviewers the power to see how the description has been changed over time.

[+wmpastor]

Although the Rhone style wines are a focus, a limited amount of classic Bordeaux varietals are also available.

 

They invite every wine enthusiast to visit the vineyard, enjoy the scenery, and taste de exceptional wines.

Seaglass Pirates, do you see this as a call for a wine discussion? I'm not taking it there - just asking.

 

Some caches are in parks or preserves. Is it wrong to mention the other activities that can be done there (some for a fee)?

 

This issue of certain electronic devices working and some not is tricky. You mean the cache listing is not supposed to say which works???

[+wmpastor]

Your research is pretty good. I left out the gc and reviewer on purpose but I suppose if you just put a part of that in google it would come up.

Maybe search history is stored?

[4wheelin_fool]

Although the Rhone style wines are a focus, a limited amount of classic Bordeaux varietals are also available.

 

They invite every wine enthusiast to visit the vineyard, enjoy the scenery, and taste de exceptional wines.

Seaglass Pirates, do you see this as a call for a wine discussion? I'm not taking it there - just asking.

 

 

Please don't. The sentences I wrote came up on the site from which the GC description had been copied and pasted from. In fact, several different sites such as trip advisory, all had the same thing. I suspect it is the same verbiage the reviewer asked to have removed.

[+JPreto]

3. Who knows what edits may have been made to the description post-publication?

 

Really, Groudspeak?

 

You have not created an editlog table that stores a copy of each cache description, as it was, previous to an update? Give reviewers the power to see how the description has been changed over time.

 

Well... same thing happened here in Brazil! Edit after publication breaching the guidelines...

 

The CO (actually considered the most prominent geocacher in Brazil) edit both the cache description and hint so that I couldn´t get the cache, be the FTF and get the price of: a T-shirt, a 1 year premium membership and a TB. By doing this he went against the guidelines and the cache as disabled after I warned the reviewers. He then, after just a few days, enable the cache so that a new guy & wife could get the FTF and the prizes... then he disabled it again to edit the description and hints so that they follow the guidelines, it was approved and enabled again, and nobody else found it until today.

 

http://coord.info/GC4ZGHZ

 

Just see the logs and see the other caches of the series!

[cezanne]

.. same thing happened here in Brazil! Edit after publication breaching the guidelines...

 

The CO (actually considered the most prominent geocacher in Brazil) edit both the cache description and hint so that I couldn´t get the cache, be the FTF and get the price of: a T-shirt, a 1 year premium membership and a TB. By doing this he went against the guidelines and the cache as disabled after I warned the reviewers.

 

Just editing the description and the hint is not against the guideline. It depends on the edit.

FTF races are not part of Groundspeak's guidelines. A cache owner could also tell a friend of some cache before the cache gets published. Likewise help can be offered to some cachers and not to all for a difficult cache. This does not result in a fair race, but does not break any Groundspeak guideline.

 

Of course an edit can result in a problem with the guidelines, but just the facts you outline do not suffice to accuse someone of having broken the guidelines.

[+JPreto]

.. same thing happened here in Brazil! Edit after publication breaching the guidelines...

 

The CO (actually considered the most prominent geocacher in Brazil) edit both the cache description and hint so that I couldn´t get the cache, be the FTF and get the price of: a T-shirt, a 1 year premium membership and a TB. By doing this he went against the guidelines and the cache as disabled after I warned the reviewers.

 

Just editing the description and the hint is not against the guideline. It depends on the edit.

FTF races are not part of Groundspeak's guidelines. A cache owner could also tell a friend of some cache before the cache gets published. Likewise help can be offered to some cachers and not to all for a difficult cache. This does not result in a fair race, but does not break any Groundspeak guideline.

 

Of course an edit can result in a problem with the guidelines, but just the facts you outline do not suffice to accuse someone of having broken the guidelines.

 

Editing after publishing is not a breach in the guidelines, I didn´t say it was... but editing something to be against the guidelines is. In this case he changed the description so people had to send him an email explaining how the cache coordinates were obtained, otherwise he would delete the find.

 

ALR are not allowed except in Challenge or Grandfathered caches. That cache was neither case. It was so that it was the reviewer that disabled the cache, as you can see in the logs.

 

The FTF part was mentioned just to understand the reason why he didn´t want me to be the first one to find the cache...

[Nomex]

Today I am driving around grabbing a few easy one and come across this one.

 

Thanks for the heads up. I always strive for consistency

[Mr.Yuck]

Iam thinking that under number 2 the cache owner complied and then redid it afterwards in direct conflict with the reviewers request. Maybe the reviewer ought to go back and re review

 

I never said that a previous cache could be used to justify anything. I can see how someone reading my post might have thought that though.

 

Your research is pretty good. I left out the gc and reviewer on purpose but I suppose if you just put a part of that in google it would come up.

 

When you post the entire contents of the cache description, Google will find it in like, I don't know, 30 microseconds. Cache appears to not just been archived, but retracted?

[jholly]

Iam thinking that under number 2 the cache owner complied and then redid it afterwards in direct conflict with the reviewers request. Maybe the reviewer ought to go back and re review

 

I never said that a previous cache could be used to justify anything. I can see how someone reading my post might have thought that though.

 

Your research is pretty good. I left out the gc and reviewer on purpose but I suppose if you just put a part of that in google it would come up.

 

When you post the entire contents of the cache description, Google will find it in like, I don't know, 30 microseconds. Cache appears to not just been archived, but retracted?

 

Yeah, reviewers do that sort of thing. I wish they would stop it and just archive the darn thing and lock the page if they want. Now everybody that found the cache has their stats over on project-gc screwed because that cache does not show up and is not counted. Even on Groundspeak the numbers are messed up. I had one like that once. A traditional that was placed to close to an old multi and the final was not listed. Okay, they did that back in the day, so just archive the darn traditional and be done with. No, the listing was redacted. I went crazy for a couple days trying to figure it out. After complaining on the forum about it and having a back and forth with Moun10bike he finally put in archive status. I don't understand what is wrong with just an archive. The reviewer can say some thing like emailed the CO with the problem.

[Keystone]

The retraction in this case would likely be temporary; the cache would be republished once the description is edited to meet the guidelines. In such cases, retraction is an efficient tool to facilitate the edits and then get the listing back into the review queue, so that the reviewer is guaranteed to see the new changes.

[jholly]

The retraction in this case would likely be temporary; the cache would be republished once the description is edited to meet the guidelines. In such cases, retraction is an efficient tool to facilitate the edits and then get the listing back into the review queue, so that the reviewer is guaranteed to see the new changes.

Okay, but in my case the retraction was permanent.