Reviewers are not created equal?

[CalgaryTowerCachers]

I've recently tried to make a series based on our local NHL team, the Calgary Flames.

 

Well, it seems that our local reviewer won't allow the use of the team name "Calgary Flames" or the team logo on the cache pages. (Actually, the reviewer is "not sure" whether it is allowed) The reviewer has forced me to contact appeals, which I have done. But, this a big inconvenience and I'm left wondering if the work I've put in will be for naught?

 

Wait, wait! What about these caches?

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC53AN2_ebbp-nhl-series-flames

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2JNC2_nhl-hockey-team-challenge

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4PNQP_canada-loon-know-your-canadian-hockey-teams

 

It appears that the use of the team name and the logo is allowed there? Are these reviewers missing the violations? Are reviewers not created equal?

 

I have to assume, when I am designing a cache, that other geocaches have been reviewed with the same scrutiny that I will face. In that case, doesn't it make sense that I can follow what I see around me? (The exception is, of course, grandfathered rules, which this is not)

 

The best case scenario is that the reviewer just didn't know and the appeals will approve the idea. But I have to admit I will be upset if the appeals board rejects my idea, even though I understand "rules are rules".

 

I'm curious to hear other people's opinions on this topic or perhaps you could share a story on your similar experiences.

[+Bear and Ragged]

There is a "Precedent" part in the guidelines.

 

Just because a cache has been approved previously, doesn't mean another one like it will be approved in the future.

 

I think the reviewer is being fair by asking you to seek a review by Groundspeak via the appeals process.

 

[+Team Hugs]

Give it some time. If your reviewer is "not sure", the appeals process may prove you correct and give your reviewer the information they need.

[+CanadianRockies]

The guidelines do deem a cache to be too commercial if "t contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations."

 

I'm fairly sure the previous version of the guidelines specifically allowed for "cultural references," such as film names, game names, and sport team names. But I cannot find that exception in the current edition.

[TahoeJoe]

It sounds to me like it could be a trademark issue and is sounds like the reviewer was honest with you saying he's not sure if it is allowed. Did he offer to check and get back to you? It seems to me he is playing it on the safe side. Just because three other caches made it through means it's right. Let us know what the appeals board says.

[CalgaryTowerCachers]

There is a "Precedent" part in the guidelines.

 

Just because a cache has been approved previously, doesn't mean another one like it will be approved in the future.

 

I think the reviewer is being fair by asking you to seek a review by Groundspeak via the appeals process.

 

 

Yes, I understand there is a precedent part. But if a cache is in violation of a rule such as a commercial guideline, shouldn't it be required to remove the violation? A commercial violation shouldn't fall under the precedent clause.

 

Give it some time. If your reviewer is "not sure", the appeals process may prove you correct and give your reviewer the information they need.

 

Agreed! Just thought I'd strike a conversation while I wait and twiddle my thumbs

[+Gill & Tony]

My similar experience:

 

I created a 2,000Km challenge ( Find two caches on the same date local time more than 2,000Km apart). My reviewer asked for a few changes in wording and it was eventually published. A few months later I flew Sydney to Vancouver and qualified at a bit over 12,000 Km so I created 5,000 and 10,000 Km versions, using exactly the same wording as the first one. They had to be changed since the interpretation of the guidelines had changed. The guidelines were unchanged, just the way they were interpreted had changed.

 

I rewrote all three to fit and they are now published.

[CalgaryTowerCachers]

The guidelines do deem a cache to be too commercial if "t contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations."

 

I'm fairly sure the previous version of the guidelines specifically allowed for "cultural references," such as film names, game names, and sport team names. But I cannot find that exception in the current edition.

Do you recall approximately when the rule change took place? There are examples of caches placed within the last 9 months that violate the rule. (I won't post them to save space, but they're out there)

 

It sounds to me like it could be a trademark issue and is sounds like the reviewer was honest with you saying he's not sure if it is allowed. Did he offer to check and get back to you? It seems to me he is playing it on the safe side. Just because three other caches made it through means it's right. Let us know what the appeals board says.

Nope, they just said "bye bye" and told me to talk to the appeals board.

[+palmetto]

our local reviewer won't allow the use of the team name "Calgary Flames" or the team logo on the cache pages.

 

The reviewer note I read says the the use of the name is probably okay, but he'd like you to to appeals for the use of team logo.

 

The appeals crew will either say the logo use is okay, under the same Pop culture exception as the team name, or they'll say it isn't.

This won't take terribly long and then you'll know.

 

There's conflict between the specific language of the commercial guideline and the looser definitions allowing exceptions for Pop culture references.

Here's the guideline link http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#commercialcaches

 

and the Help Center article which tries to clarify the Pop culture exceptions allowing for use of business and product names

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=475

[+niraD]

But if a cache is in violation of a rule such as a commercial guideline, shouldn't it be required to remove the violation? A commercial violation shouldn't fall under the precedent clause.

Actually, over the years, a number of guidelines have been tightened up (either with revised language or with new interpretations of the existing language). Usually, existing caches are grandfathered.

 

The main exception to that that I recall was the guideline against Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs). That change declared all existing ALRs to be optional, rather than grandfathering them.

[+Bear and Ragged]

There is a "Precedent" part in the guidelines.

 

Just because a cache has been approved previously, doesn't mean another one like it will be approved in the future.

 

I think the reviewer is being fair by asking you to seek a review by Groundspeak via the appeals process.

 

 

Yes, I understand there is a precedent part. But if a cache is in violation of a rule such as a commercial guideline, shouldn't it be required to remove the violation? A commercial violation shouldn't fall under the precedent clause.

 

Often, when the guidelines change, caches already published get 'Grandfathered' and can remain 'As is' without having to be changed to meet the 'new' guidelines.

[CalgaryTowerCachers]

our local reviewer won't allow the use of the team name "Calgary Flames" or the team logo on the cache pages.

 

The reviewer note I read says the the use of the name is probably okay, but he'd like you to to appeals for the use of team logo.

 

The appeals crew will either say the logo use is okay, under the same Pop culture exception as the team name, or they'll say it isn't.

This won't take terribly long and then you'll know.

 

There's conflict between the specific language of the commercial guideline and the looser definitions allowing exceptions for Pop culture references.

Here's the guideline link http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#commercialcaches

 

and the Help Center article which tries to clarify the Pop culture exceptions allowing for use of business and product names

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=475

Interesting links, thanks!

[+Sapience Trek]

Unfortunately the review process is not black and white. It isn't always clear when one has strayed from a casual cultural reference to becoming commercial or promotional of a product or service. Because it isn't always clear, and reviewers are humans (and in one case a dog), you will never get 100% consistency.

 

If you keep your cache page about the cache, the location, and the experience, you will seldom if ever have problems because of the write up. Once you start writing about your favorite team, or beverage, or burger, or beer, or computer, you will quickly start seeing inconsistencies and push backs.

 

I don't think you want to enter the black and white world, otherwise cache pages would become severely restricted in content, with no discretion left to the reviewers.

[+JL_HSTRE]

The team name should be fine, but the logo seems like a trademark issue.

 

But frankly a cacher like the OP getting annoyed at being "inconvenienced" when a Reviewer doesn't publish their caches right away due to checking some Guidelines question (including asking Groundspeak to rule on something) is a cacher who needs to reconsider their attitude.

[+The A-Team]

Are these reviewers missing the violations? Are reviewers not created equal?

No, reviewers are not all created equal. Like snowflakes, no two reviewers are alike. They're diverse humans* like the rest of us, and they can make mistakes and interpret guideline language in different ways. Expecting all reviewers to be perfect and review every cache in exactly the same way would be unreasonable and wouldn't allow for regional customs and variations.

 

I think you may be overreacting over the current situation. The reviewer has been honest with you in saying that they aren't sure, and it sounds like the worst that could happen would be that you'd have to remove the logo (I wouldn't expect that would be much of an impact, would it?). It's not uncommon for reviewers to direct edge-cases to appeals so GSHQ can make the determination of what is and isn't acceptable, and the reviewer will then know how to handle such cases in the future.

 

It's best not to get on the bad side of reviewers. They know all the places you can hide a body that haven't been publicly published.

 

*Well, many of them are actually dogs, but that's beside the point...

[knowschad]

There is a "Precedent" part in the guidelines.

 

Just because a cache has been approved previously, doesn't mean another one like it will be approved in the future.

 

I think the reviewer is being fair by asking you to seek a review by Groundspeak via the appeals process.

 

 

Yes, I understand there is a precedent part. But if a cache is in violation of a rule such as a commercial guideline, shouldn't it be required to remove the violation? A commercial violation shouldn't fall under the precedent clause.

Just how would the reviewers go about enforcing that? They'd have to examine every cache in their jurisdiction periodically for caches that fit the most recent interpretations of the guidelines. Impossible!

[+SageTracey]

Sounds to me as though the reviewer is happy to admit that he/she doesn't know everything and is open to accepting ruling and guidance from Groundspeak.

 

It may delay the publication of a cache or two for a short time but surely that is better than publishing a cache which is subsequently deemed to be outside of the guidelines.

[+narcissa]

Reviewers are volunteers and they honestly are not out to get you. If you can't work with them and be patient with the process, don't hide caches. Going on a witchhunt for other caches isn't going to help your case.

[CalgaryTowerCachers]

The team name should be fine, but the logo seems like a trademark issue.

 

But frankly a cacher like the OP getting annoyed at being "inconvenienced" when a Reviewer doesn't publish their caches right away due to checking some Guidelines question (including asking Groundspeak to rule on something) is a cacher who needs to reconsider their attitude.

I'm frustrated that I am forced to go to appeals to figure out the rules. Isn't it the job of the reviewer to know/learn the rules and enforce them? I'm okay with the reviewer taking time to learn the rules but simply telling me "go to appeals" isn't helpful.

 

There is a "Precedent" part in the guidelines.

 

Just because a cache has been approved previously, doesn't mean another one like it will be approved in the future.

 

I think the reviewer is being fair by asking you to seek a review by Groundspeak via the appeals process.

 

 

Yes, I understand there is a precedent part. But if a cache is in violation of a rule such as a commercial guideline, shouldn't it be required to remove the violation? A commercial violation shouldn't fall under the precedent clause.

Just how would the reviewers go about enforcing that? They'd have to examine every cache in their jurisdiction periodically for caches that fit the most recent interpretations of the guidelines. Impossible!

So why can't I publish a blank page then change it a week later? According to what you say the reviewers will never see that I changed it....? They must check from time to time? Maybe I'm naive but I repeat, why can't I simply change a published page to something that violates the rules after it is published?

[+cerberus1]

...So why can't I publish a blank page then change it a week later? According to what you say the reviewers will never see that I changed it....? They must check from time to time? Maybe I'm naive but I repeat, why can't I simply change a published page to something that violates the rules after it is published?

I'd bet since you wrote that, someone might check time-to-time now...

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The team name should be fine, but the logo seems like a trademark issue.

 

But frankly a cacher like the OP getting annoyed at being "inconvenienced" when a Reviewer doesn't publish their caches right away due to checking some Guidelines question (including asking Groundspeak to rule on something) is a cacher who needs to reconsider their attitude.

I'm frustrated that I am forced to go to appeals to figure out the rules. Isn't it the job of the reviewer to know/learn the rules and enforce them? I'm okay with the reviewer taking time to learn the rules but simply telling me "go to appeals" isn't helpful.

 

There is a "Precedent" part in the guidelines.

 

Just because a cache has been approved previously, doesn't mean another one like it will be approved in the future.

 

I think the reviewer is being fair by asking you to seek a review by Groundspeak via the appeals process.

 

 

Yes, I understand there is a precedent part. But if a cache is in violation of a rule such as a commercial guideline, shouldn't it be required to remove the violation? A commercial violation shouldn't fall under the precedent clause.

Just how would the reviewers go about enforcing that? They'd have to examine every cache in their jurisdiction periodically for caches that fit the most recent interpretations of the guidelines. Impossible!

So why can't I publish a blank page then change it a week later? According to what you say the reviewers will never see that I changed it....? They must check from time to time? Maybe I'm naive but I repeat, why can't I simply change a published page to something that violates the rules after it is published?

You might find that some reviewers actually make a copy of the cache listing and check back on it after it's published. Especially if it's one that has to be modified in order to meet the guidelines. You may get away with something once or twice, but you'll be on The Frog's watchlist after that.

[+Sapience Trek]

I'm frustrated that I am forced to go to appeals to figure out the rules. Isn't it the job of the reviewer to know/learn the rules and enforce them? I'm okay with the reviewer taking time to learn the rules but simply telling me "go to appeals" isn't helpful.

 

The people at appeals are friendly and helpful. It's not a painful operation to contact them. In some cases, if there is a lot of back and forth between a cacher and a reviewer on an issue that isn't 100% clear, it's easier to take out the middle-man (the reviewer) and have the cacher contact appeals directly.

 

It's not a bad thing.

 

So why can't I publish a blank page then change it a week later? According to what you say the reviewers will never see that I changed it....? They must check from time to time? Maybe I'm naive but I repeat, why can't I simply change a published page to something that violates the rules after it is published?

 

Nothing stopping you from doing so. But realize there are many cachers out there that will report a violation, and if it's obvious that the cache page was changed post publication to get around a guideline, your cache is likely to be disabled or archived, and future cache reviews will be scrutinized and monitored.

[+Michaelcycle]

 

I'm frustrated that I am forced to go to appeals to figure out the rules. Isn't it the job of the reviewer to know/learn the rules and enforce them? I'm okay with the reviewer taking time to learn the rules but simply telling me "go to appeals" isn't helpful.

 

 

1. They are guidelines, and some of them are not immutable. As has been explained, there are regional and cultural differences that local reviewers tend to be knowledgable about but some issues are in grey areas.

 

2. The reviewer could have simply refused to publish the cache. Then you would have been forced to go to appeals anyway (assuming, as a new cacher, you knew about the appeals process.) The reviewer HAS been helpful by saving you a step.

 

By the way, COs have altered cache pages to violate guidelines after submission. Multiple examples of that behavior have been documented in this forum and the caches have been disabled/archived by reviewers/HQ as appropriate. Your implication that that is a way around the interpretation of the guidelines, if it doesn't meet with your approval, is disturbing.

[+GeoBain]

So why can't I publish a blank page then change it a week later? According to what you say the reviewers will never see that I changed it....? They must check from time to time? Maybe I'm naive but I repeat, why can't I simply change a published page to something that violates the rules after it is published?

 

You can and you might even get away with it, for a while. But reviewers are not the only ones that read your listing. More often than not, someone will see the violation and question it. The more interesting ones are just like the links you posted that get posted in the forums. I guarantee by now at least one reviewer has visited those links now and checked them.

 

What is done in the dark will be revealed by the light of day.

[CalgaryTowerCachers]

The people at appeals are friendly and helpful. It's not a painful operation to contact them. In some cases, if there is a lot of back and forth between a cacher and a reviewer on an issue that isn't 100% clear, it's easier to take out the middle-man (the reviewer) and have the cacher contact appeals directly.

 

It's not a bad thing.

Well that's nice to hear. I don't know why but I just assumed that appeals would be a slow and painful process.

 

By the way, COs have altered cache pages to violate guidelines after submission. Multiple examples of that behavior have been documented in this forum and the caches have been disabled/archived by reviewers/HQ as appropriate. Your implication that that is a way around the interpretation of the guidelines, if it doesn't meet with your approval, is disturbing.

I never said I would do anything like that. I was just curious in general whether reviewers would actually notice. Makes me wonder how many caches around my home have been altered post-review...

Sometimes I wonder how some things got published in the first place. Now I know that it could have simply been altered by the CO between the review period and now! Relying on other cachers to spot the problem could be challenging, especially if the page is borderline on being against the guidelines.

 

Also makes me wonder why more businesses wouldn't try to get a little free advertising now and then. Set up a fake account, post a "blank" page, edit it a day or two after publication with commercial promos, and just letting it ride! Sure, it would get caught eventually, but it's free marketing! In the right place and context 1000s of people could see it before it's changed. Just sayin'.

[CalgaryTowerCachers]

I'm frustrated that I am forced to go to appeals to figure out the rules. Isn't it the job of the reviewer to know/learn the rules and enforce them? I'm okay with the reviewer taking time to learn the rules but simply telling me "go to appeals" isn't helpful.

1. They are guidelines, and some of them are not immutable. As has been explained, there are regional and cultural differences that local reviewers tend to be knowledgable about but some issues are in grey areas.

 

2. The reviewer could have simply refused to publish the cache. Then you would have been forced to go to appeals anyway (assuming, as a new cacher, you knew about the appeals process.) The reviewer HAS been helpful by saving you a step.

Wouldn't it be most helpful to say, "You know what, I don't know the rule, but I will look into it for you. Check your email and in a few days I will respond with the answer!"? I feel like that's what I would do if I were trying to be a helpful reviewer. Not that I know a single thing about reviewing. But, it just seems logical, no?

[+palmetto]

I just assumed that appeals would be a slow and painful process.

 

Reviewers have asked the Fine Folks at Appeals to stop taking hiders out back and working them over with a 2x4. I think they've lightened up some.

 

The hider initiates an appeal. It's more efficient for the hider and appeals to work directly with one another. Reviewer will be covered. This won't take long. The appeals team works to get as many caches published as possible, as near to the cache owner's vision as possible.

 

There has been change in the way commercial issues are handled over time, and what does and doesn't fall under the umbrella of a Pop Culture exception to the commercial guideline.

 

Good luck.

[cezanne]

There's conflict between the specific language of the commercial guideline and the looser definitions allowing exceptions for Pop culture references.

Here's the guideline link http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#commercialcaches

 

and the Help Center article which tries to clarify the Pop culture exceptions allowing for use of business and product names

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=475

 

Very interesting post. Thank you. I have never not been aware of the pop culture exceptions. I just wonder why here and in several other cases there are conflicts between the guideline and the

help center texts. Of course they are not authored by the same persons, but why cannot such issues be dealt with and the wording of the guidelines be changed in such cases?

[knowschad]

In less than one month, you have managed to hide a geo-art series of 82 mystery caches in the shape of the Calgary Tower, all named after the Calgary Tower that you took your caching name from. I'm actually a bit surprised that you managed to get past the commercial guidelines for those, since Calgary Tower is commercial enough to have their own domain named http://www.calgarytower.com/. And now you want to hide a cache (or another geoart series?) for the Calgary NHL team. You seem to be a one-man Chamber of Commerce for Calgary! And it has kept you so busy that you have yet to be able to find one single geocache?

[+Touchstone]

There's conflict between the specific language of the commercial guideline and the looser definitions allowing exceptions for Pop culture references.

Here's the guideline link http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#commercialcaches

 

and the Help Center article which tries to clarify the Pop culture exceptions allowing for use of business and product names

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=475

 

Very interesting post. Thank you. I have never not been aware of the pop culture exceptions. I just wonder why here and in several other cases there are conflicts between the guideline and the

help center texts. Of course they are not authored by the same persons, but why cannot such issues be dealt with and the wording of the guidelines be changed in such cases?

Probably for the sake of brevity. The "We don't allow" parts appear to be identical to me. The Help Center merely adds a section of what exceptions may be granted, if certain conditions are met.

[+Cache Effect]

I'm frustrated that I am forced to go to appeals to figure out the rules. Isn't it the job of the reviewer to know/learn the rules and enforce them? I'm okay with the reviewer taking time to learn the rules but simply telling me "go to appeals" isn't helpful.

1. They are guidelines, and some of them are not immutable. As has been explained, there are regional and cultural differences that local reviewers tend to be knowledgable about but some issues are in grey areas.

 

2. The reviewer could have simply refused to publish the cache. Then you would have been forced to go to appeals anyway (assuming, as a new cacher, you knew about the appeals process.) The reviewer HAS been helpful by saving you a step.

Wouldn't it be most helpful to say, "You know what, I don't know the rule, but I will look into it for you. Check your email and in a few days I will respond with the answer!"? I feel like that's what I would do if I were trying to be a helpful reviewer. Not that I know a single thing about reviewing. But, it just seems logical, no?

 

 

It is my understanding that your reviewer did not say "bye bye" but rather "As a volunteer reviewer, this is an ongoing learning process for me" and requested that you utilize the appeals process to get some clarity on the situation.

[+ArtieD]

In less than one month, you have managed to hide a geo-art series of 82 mystery caches in the shape of the Calgary Tower, all named after the Calgary Tower that you took your caching name from. I'm actually a bit surprised that you managed to get past the commercial guidelines for those, since Calgary Tower is commercial enough to have their own domain named http://www.calgarytower.com/. And now you want to hide a cache (or another geoart series?) for the Calgary NHL team. You seem to be a one-man Chamber of Commerce for Calgary! And it has kept you so busy that you have yet to be able to find one single geocache?

 

Very, very interesting!

[+ChileHead]

And it has kept you so busy that you have yet to be able to find one single geocache?

 

Obviously this account is a sock puppet for another account. Which, last I knew, was against the forum guidelines to post with a sock.

[+Team Microdot]

This thread has really brought home to me just why the non-commercial guideline exists.

[+ChileHead]

This thread has really brought home to me just why the non-commercial guideline exists.

 

I just want to find boxes of crap in the woods. I could care less about somebody's favorite team or favorite {whatever}. I'm happy to see the write up talk about how great the view is, or the history of the spot, or something about the location. I skip over all the blah blah blah about stuff unrelated to the cache.

[+One Bad Ant]

As an Alberta Cacher with the same reviewer, I know our reviewer is one of the best and is great at protecting both the cachers and Groundspeak! I have over 250 caches published and only had one reviewed with Groundspeak appeal process, and that resulted in a small tweak in the cache listing before publishing. 

 

As for changing the cache page after publishing, there are millions of caches, would you like to volunteer for the job of reviewing them again yearly to see if they match the evolving Groundspeak rules? Not me!

[+on4bam]

As for changing the cache page after publishing, there are millions of caches, would you like to volunteer for the job of reviewing them again yearly to see if they match the evolving Groundspeak rules? Not me!

 

As in any Kindergarden there will be at least one who's "going to tell sir"

[CalgaryTowerCachers]

I'm frustrated that I am forced to go to appeals to figure out the rules. Isn't it the job of the reviewer to know/learn the rules and enforce them? I'm okay with the reviewer taking time to learn the rules but simply telling me "go to appeals" isn't helpful.

1. They are guidelines, and some of them are not immutable. As has been explained, there are regional and cultural differences that local reviewers tend to be knowledgable about but some issues are in grey areas.

 

2. The reviewer could have simply refused to publish the cache. Then you would have been forced to go to appeals anyway (assuming, as a new cacher, you knew about the appeals process.) The reviewer HAS been helpful by saving you a step.

Wouldn't it be most helpful to say, "You know what, I don't know the rule, but I will look into it for you. Check your email and in a few days I will respond with the answer!"? I feel like that's what I would do if I were trying to be a helpful reviewer. Not that I know a single thing about reviewing. But, it just seems logical, no?

It is my understanding that your reviewer did not say "bye bye" but rather "As a volunteer reviewer, this is an ongoing learning process for me" and requested that you utilize the appeals process to get some clarity on the situation.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but shouldn't it be the job of the reviewer to know the rules? I understand you can't know everything but you can learn. Being a reviewer almost seems like being a teacher to me. I ask a question, and you don't know the answer. A good teacher doesn't tell me to go look up the answer in a book. A good teacher is curious to learn the answer, figures out the answer, then explains it to the student in a way that is understandable.

My physics teacher in high school was like this. He didn't teach, he just told us to read out of the book. By the end of the semester the students were smarter than the teacher!

Telling me to go look it up in a book, to me, is essentially saying "bye bye, good luck".

 

As an Alberta Cacher with the same reviewer, I know our reviewer is one of the best and is great at protecting both the cachers and Groundspeak! I have over 250 caches published and only had one reviewed with Groundspeak appeal process, and that resulted in a small tweak in the cache listing before publishing. 

 

As for changing the cache page after publishing, there are millions of caches, would you like to volunteer for the job of reviewing them again yearly to see if they match the evolving Groundspeak rules? Not me!

I never said anything anywhere that she/he is not a good reviewer. She/he is very good. That said I have nothing to compare to, and in this case (see above), I was a little disappointed. I understand the hard work of a reviewer, and appreciate it very much!

[CalgaryTowerCachers]

This thread has really brought home to me just why the non-commercial guideline exists.

 

I just want to find boxes of crap in the woods. I could care less about somebody's favorite team or favorite {whatever}. I'm happy to see the write up talk about how great the view is, or the history of the spot, or something about the location. I skip over all the blah blah blah about stuff unrelated to the cache.

Here here! But, being from Canada, we love our hockey. I think Calgarians will love this one if it gets published. If it doesn't, oh well, it'll just become a trail of boxes next to fenceposts. I'm curious to know if I can do it though!

[+Claystalker]

There seems to always be a lot of people on here playing with their socks.

[+GeoBain]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but shouldn't it be the job of the reviewer to know the rules? I understand you can't know everything but you can learn. Being a reviewer almost seems like being a teacher to me. I ask a question, and you don't know the answer. A good teacher doesn't tell me to go look up the answer in a book. A good teacher is curious to learn the answer, figures out the answer, then explains it to the student in a way that is understandable.

My physics teacher in high school was like this. He didn't teach, he just told us to read out of the book. By the end of the semester the students were smarter than the teacher!

Telling me to go look it up in a book, to me, is essentially saying "bye bye, good luck".

Clearly you do not understand the role of reviewers. It is not their job to teach. It is their job to publish caches. If a reviewer takes the time to explain something to you, it is nice and perhaps we should take the time to thank them for going the extra mile.

 

Your reviewer could have just as easily rejected your cache and stated the reason is that it violates the commercial guidelines. S/he could have just left it up to you to figure out there is an appeals process.

[+narcissa]

Here here! But, being from Canada, we love our hockey. I think Calgarians will love this one if it gets published. If it doesn't, oh well, it'll just become a trail of boxes next to fenceposts. I'm curious to know if I can do it though!

 

You can make great caches about hockey without emblazoning the cache page with registered trademarks.

[+AustinMN]

 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but shouldn't it be the job of the reviewer to know the rules? I understand you can't know everything but you can learn. Being a reviewer almost seems like being a teacher to me. I ask a question, and you don't know the answer. A good teacher doesn't tell me to go look up the answer in a book. A good teacher is curious to learn the answer, figures out the answer, then explains it to the student in a way that is understandable.

My physics teacher in high school was like this. He didn't teach, he just told us to read out of the book. By the end of the semester the students were smarter than the teacher!

Telling me to go look it up in a book, to me, is essentially saying "bye bye, good luck".

 

 

I have a totally different take on teaching than you. My assesment is that the physics teacher was smarter than any of you, because ghe taught you how to learn. A school student will reach a point where they don't have a teacher any more. If all of the teachers did all the research for them, then they are done learning the day they graduate. That would be tragic.

 

In this case, the reviewer has an expectation to learn, and is following the established process.

 

But if you are going to post things like this, you you really should stop claiming that you never said the reviewer was a bad reviewer. The two claims are not compatible, and everyone else knows it even if you do not.

 

Austin

[+Mudfrog]

This thread has really brought home to me just why the non-commercial guideline exists.

 

I just want to find boxes of crap in the woods. I could care less about somebody's favorite team or favorite {whatever}. I'm happy to see the write up talk about how great the view is, or the history of the spot, or something about the location. I skip over all the blah blah blah about stuff unrelated to the cache.

 

Hear, hear!

 

Unfortunately, you don't see too many good write ups like this these days. Not saying the OP is planning this but, people usually copy and paste descriptions about a certain thing they like then throw out a series of caches that show no inkling of why they are titled the way they are. More often than not, they're just another set of micros placed along a road for the numbers crowd.

[Pup Patrol]

In less than one month, you have managed to hide a geo-art series of 82 mystery caches in the shape of the Calgary Tower, all named after the Calgary Tower that you took your caching name from. I'm actually a bit surprised that you managed to get past the commercial guidelines for those, since Calgary Tower is commercial enough to have their own domain named http://www.calgarytower.com/. And now you want to hide a cache (or another geoart series?) for the Calgary NHL team. You seem to be a one-man Chamber of Commerce for Calgary! And it has kept you so busy that you have yet to be able to find one single geocache?

 

OP didn't have time to address this highly interesting post, either.

 

 

B., a Canadian who can't stand ice hockey

[+dprovan]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but shouldn't it be the job of the reviewer to know the rules?

Yes, you are mistaken. It's the job of the cache owner to know the rules. The reviewer's job is to make sure the rules are followed.

[knowschad]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but shouldn't it be the job of the reviewer to know the rules?

Yes, you are mistaken. It's the job of the cache owner to know the rules. The reviewer's job is to make sure the rules are followed.

 

Excellent!

[+on4bam]

Yes, you are mistaken. It's the job of the cache owner to know the rules. The reviewer's job is to make sure the rules are followed.

 

Making sure the rules are followed means knowing the rules... We've come full circle... To the next one...

[+narcissa]

Yes, you are mistaken. It's the job of the cache owner to know the rules. The reviewer's job is to make sure the rules are followed.

 

Making sure the rules are followed means knowing the rules... We've come full circle... To the next one...

 

If it's a situation the reviewer hasn't seen before, the reviewer may prefer to defer to someone else instead of risking an incorrect decision.

[cezanne]

It's the job of the cache owner to know the rules.

 

I agree. However I would wish that the rules are clearly stated in the guidelines, including exceptions. It is not efficient to have to check all kind of side documents and then to decide which one is the correct version.

 

Conflicts between the guidelines and the knowledge center are unfortunate.