Reviewers are not created equal?

[+dprovan]

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

On the contrary, we're discussing exactly the case where the reviewer didn't know the rule. The OP thought that meant the reviewer didn't do his job, but that's not the case.

 

I agree. However I would wish that the rules are clearly stated in the guidelines, including exceptions.

That's a good point, but irrelevant in this thread. Theoretically what we're discussing here is a case where the rule is being written for the first time.

[cezanne]

However I would wish that the rules are clearly stated in the guidelines, including exceptions.

That's a good point, but irrelevant in this thread. Theoretically what we're discussing here is a case where the rule is being written for the first time.

 

It's related to this thread because palmetto's post made me aware of that it is apparently not enough to read the guidelines. In this case the knowledge book version is more

lenient, but it could as well be the other way round.

 

Moreover, what does not mean to know the rules? For someone like me it is very hard to deal with two conflicting statements issued by the same entity. It's not a motivation situation.

[+Touchstone]

I've read the same links that palmetto posted and the only difference I can see is that one version expands on the topic, while the other is more condensed. Aside from that, perhaps there is an argument for making the Guidelines more complete, and all inclusive. Something on the order of the iTunes store TOU would fit the bill:

 

for example, itunes store -

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/uk/terms.html

 

Approx 30 pages / 324 paragraphs / 15801 words / 97,535 characters.

 

Is there a much larger one out there? (by word count)

[+narcissa]

However I would wish that the rules are clearly stated in the guidelines, including exceptions.

That's a good point, but irrelevant in this thread. Theoretically what we're discussing here is a case where the rule is being written for the first time.

 

It's related to this thread because palmetto's post made me aware of that it is apparently not enough to read the guidelines. In this case the knowledge book version is more

lenient, but it could as well be the other way round.

 

Moreover, what does not mean to know the rules? For someone like me it is very hard to deal with two conflicting statements issued by the same entity. It's not a motivation situation.

 

It's a game, not a criminal trial. If you do your best to follow the guidelines as you understand them, and a reviewer occasionally has to seek clarification, why is that such a big deal?

[+wmpastor]

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?

 

You mean that's not enough work for one month?? The Calgary Chamber of Commerce doesn't pay overtime!

[+MountainWoods]

Wait a minute. The subject Geocache is from Canada and concerns a hockey team? Couldn't that be said to be promoting a religion???

[+AustinMN]

Wait a minute. The subject Geocache is from Canada and concerns a hockey team? Couldn't that be said to be promoting a religion???

 

If that is true, then every PWA (Public Water Access) cache in Minnesota is promoting a religion. That would be about 25% of the best caches.

 

Austin

[+Team Microdot]

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!

 

And making it 'about' your chosen subject area somehow makes the boxes next to fenceposts magically transform into something else? No.

 

If you think your cache series will be somehow diminished because of its failure to comply properly with the guidelines why not look for other ways to improve it that will make you happier?

[+The A-Team]

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

Yes, you're mistaken. It's actually the job of the reviewer to know the guidelines. The word "rule" implies a black-and-white definition of what is and isn't allowed. The word "guideline" implies a framework that roughly defines what is and isn't allowed, but doesn't use hard-and-fast/black-and-white rules. The guidelines in use on this site are intentionally vague to allow for innovative concepts and regional variations. Due to this, they contain grey areas, so reviewers are constantly making judgment calls regarding whether a cache violates a guideline.

 

In cases where a cache may fall in a grey area that the reviewer is uncomfortable making a judgment on, the responsibility of making the decision is passed to GSHQ (namely, the appeals section) so that an "official" judgment can be made that can also be disseminated to other reviewers. Often appeals will need more information about the situation being reviewed, and much of that information can only come from the cache owner. Getting the cache owner to contact appeals directly cuts out the middle man (ie. the reviewer) so the process can move more efficiently. Once a judgment has been made, both the cache owner and reviewer will know how GSHQ deems that such a situation should be handled.

 

Disclaimer: Having never actually had to take a cache to appeals, I've based the above on information gleaned from the website and these forums. If any of it is off-base, I happily invite a reviewer or Lackey to point out any inaccuracies.

[TahoeJoe]

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

Yes, you're mistaken. It's actually the job of the reviewer to know the guidelines. The word "rule" implies a black-and-white definition of what is and isn't allowed. The word "guideline" implies a framework that roughly defines what is and isn't allowed, but doesn't use hard-and-fast/black-and-white rules. The guidelines in use on this site are intentionally vague to allow for innovative concepts and regional variations. Due to this, they contain grey areas, so reviewers are constantly making judgment calls regarding whether a cache violates a guideline.

 

In cases where a cache may fall in a grey area that the reviewer is uncomfortable making a judgment on, the responsibility of making the decision is passed to GSHQ (namely, the appeals section) so that an "official" judgment can be made that can also be disseminated to other reviewers. Often appeals will need more information about the situation being reviewed, and much of that information can only come from the cache owner. Getting the cache owner to contact appeals directly cuts out the middle man (ie. the reviewer) so the process can move more efficiently. Once a judgment has been made, both the cache owner and reviewer will know how GSHQ deems that such a situation should be handled.

 

Disclaimer: Having never actually had to take a cache to appeals, I've based the above on information gleaned from the website and these forums. If any of it is off-base, I happily invite a reviewer or Lackey to point out any inaccuracies.

Are we geocaching or applying for a house loan?

[cezanne]

It's a game, not a criminal trial. If you do your best to follow the guidelines as you understand them, and a reviewer occasionally has to seek clarification, why is that such a big deal?

 

The issue I have is of course not that a reviewer has to seek clarification.

 

The issue I have is with situations where the guidelines state something like

 

Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

 

It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

It contains links to businesses, agencies, commercial advertisers, charities, or political or social agendas.

It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

It contains the name of a business or commercial product.

 

and then another text clarifies that listings can contain names of a business or commercial product in certain cases (which is a good thing in my opinion).

 

Would it be that costly to add "for exceptions and further details see the following help-center article" if one wants to keep the guidelines short?

 

It's annoying if some cachers drop their cache ideas because they believe that something is not allowed as the guidelines are formulated more strictly as they are applied.

That simply does not make sense to me and noone seems to profit from it.

 

Of course not every possible scenario can be covered by the guidelines and the appeal system will always be needed. The point I was trying to make refers to the fact that

I do not understand why it makes sense to write an absolute rule in the guidelines and then weaken it in some other document (not linked in the guidelines).

 

 

Cezanne

[+Johnnyhotcakes]

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.

Abe Froman published a Chicago Blackhawks themed Geocache http://coord.info/GC29PFV, and I would be willing to bet Edward Rooney would also approve and publish one. I note the the Chicago Blackhawks geocache does not have a logo of the Blackhawks.

Too bad that the Blackhawks will not be facing the Calgary Flames in the confrence finals.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Wait a minute. The subject Geocache is from Canada and concerns a hockey team? Couldn't that be said to be promoting a religion???

 

How about those Anaheim Ducks!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.geocachin...l-series-flames

http://www.geocachin...-team-challenge

http://www.geocachin...an-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.

Abe Froman published a Chicago Blackhawks themed Geocache http://coord.info/GC29PFV, and I would be willing to bet Edward Rooney would also approve and publish one. I note the the Chicago Blackhawks geocache does not have a logo of the Blackhawks.

Too bad that the Blackhawks will not be facing the Calgary Flames in the confrence finals.

 

In order to play in the finals don't both teams have to make it to the semi-finals....oh wait.

 

I've done a puzzle cache based on the Boston Bruins and it somehow managed to get posted without the team logo in the cache description.

 

I just solved a puzzle cache that is about a block an a half from Madison Square Garden. I'll be there in November to watch the Red Hock Hockey game between Cornell (I'm a season ticket holder) and the hopefully Eichel-less Boston University.

Edited May 13, 2015 by NYPaddleCacher

[knowschad]

Abe Froman published a Chicago Blackhawks themed Geocache http://coord.info/GC29PFV, ...

 

Yeah, in 2010. A lot has changed in four years.

 

There is also no logo on that cache page... apparently uncertainty regarding the use of the logo is the reason the reviewer asked him to take this one to appeals.

[+niraD]

Wait a minute. The subject Geocache is from Canada and concerns a hockey team? Couldn't that be said to be promoting a religion???

How about those Anaheim Ducks!

Go Sharks!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Wait a minute. The subject Geocache is from Canada and concerns a hockey team? Couldn't that be said to be promoting a religion???

How about those Anaheim Ducks!

Go Sharks!

 

I'm pretty sure that they haven't left San Jose since the playoffs started. I played darts a few times at a place called Sharkey's just across the road from the arena where the Sharks played including a couple of times when the Sharks were playing. I've been to a couple of Sabres games since they're the closest NHL team to me but I've become somewhat of a Rangers fan. I got to NYC fairly often and haven't geocached much when I'm there but I will probably try to find the one near MSG in November.

[+niraD]

Go Sharks!

I'm pretty sure that they haven't left San Jose since the playoffs started.

SICNR.

 

But yeah, they're officially rebuilding. Their coach said so as he announced his "mutually agreeable parting of ways" at the end of the season.

[+NeverSummer]

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.

Your work is not "for naught". You have still placed a cache for people to find. The focus should be less on the need or desire to use the Calgary Flames as the central issue of placement, and more on the desire to place enjoyable caches to be found without a connection to your desire to use the Calgary Flames as the description of the cache.

 

Caches are about locations and interesting ways to bring people to them. If there is a commercial aspect to a cache, it will receive more scrutiny by Reviewers and Appeals. There is no precedent for placement or publishing of caches; meaning, there is no way to use those 3 caches as examples of why your cache should be published because rules may have changed, Reviewers may have changed, and more.

 

So, work with your Reviewer and Appeals--stop viewing Reviewers as the enemy or a barrier to getting what you want. Reviewers are people too, unless they are dogs.

Edited May 14, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+NanCycle]

Abe Froman published a Chicago Blackhawks themed Geocache http://coord.info/GC29PFV, ...

 

Yeah, in 2010. A lot has changed in four years.

 

There is also no logo on that cache page... apparently uncertainty regarding the use of the logo is the reason the reviewer asked him to take this one to appeals.

 

A puzzle cache based on the 49ers was published last summer. No logo. No problem.

[+K13]

This OP sock appears to me to be promoting the local city and its attractions. If he only leaves out the logo, which is likely has copyright issues, things will probably roll right along.....except for calling out the reviewer.

[+The A-Team]

If he only leaves out the logo, which is likely has copyright issues, things will probably roll right along

Yep, that's basically what they were told by their reviewer. All this talk of appeals would have been unnecessary if they had just removed the logo, removing the appeal process from the situation entirely. Unless there's a puzzle encoded in the image (which seems unlikely based on the difficulty of the puzzles in their existing series), it really shouldn't affect the cache at all anyway.

 

BTW, CalgaryTowerCachers, if you're a group of cachers or a chamber of commerce or something, it would be good to say this in your profile so you don't get accused of being a sock puppet account. If you're truly a lone new cacher, seriously, go find some caches before placing some big geo-art series.

[knowschad]

Abe Froman published a Chicago Blackhawks themed Geocache http://coord.info/GC29PFV, ...

 

Yeah, in 2010. A lot has changed in four years.

 

There is also no logo on that cache page... apparently uncertainty regarding the use of the logo is the reason the reviewer asked him to take this one to appeals.

 

A puzzle cache based on the 49ers was published last summer. No logo. No problem.

 

That was last summer. A lot can change in a year.

[+DanOCan]

BTW, CalgaryTowerCachers, if you're a group of cachers or a chamber of commerce or something, it would be good to say this in your profile so you don't get accused of being a sock puppet account. If you're truly a lone new cacher, seriously, go find some caches before placing some big geo-art series.

The local community knows this is a sock puppet account but only a few people know who the actual cacher(s) behind it is/are.

 

At the risk of going off-topic, regardless of outcome of the ruling from The Frog, I encourage the OP to wait before publishing another string of caches. Wait and see how many maintenance issues crop up with the current caches, especially after they have been out for a few months and have been found a few dozen times -- and especially after they have been through an Alberta winter. The last thing the area needs is more caches that have fallen into a state of disrepair.

 

I also would encourage the CalgaryTowerCachers to consider putting their energy into hiding caches in interesting places, rather than simply because they make an interesting shape on the map, but that's a personal preference. There are hundreds of caches in our area already, and only the most prolific local cachers have found them all -- we really don't need a whole whack of "just for the numbers" hides. OK, editorial mode off.

[+NanCycle]

Abe Froman published a Chicago Blackhawks themed Geocache http://coord.info/GC29PFV, ...

 

Yeah, in 2010. A lot has changed in four years.

 

There is also no logo on that cache page... apparently uncertainty regarding the use of the logo is the reason the reviewer asked him to take this one to appeals.

 

A puzzle cache based on the 49ers was published last summer. No logo. No problem.

 

That was last summer. A lot can change in a year.

 

Right. And there are no precedents. Just saying.

[Andronicus]

BTW, CalgaryTowerCachers, if you're a group of cachers or a chamber of commerce or something, it would be good to say this in your profile so you don't get accused of being a sock puppet account. If you're truly a lone new cacher, seriously, go find some caches before placing some big geo-art series.

The local community knows this is a sock puppet account but only a few people know who the actual cacher(s) behind it is/are.

 

At the risk of going off-topic, regardless of outcome of the ruling from The Frog, I encourage the OP to wait before publishing another string of caches. Wait and see how many maintenance issues crop up with the current caches, especially after they have been out for a few months and have been found a few dozen times -- and especially after they have been through an Alberta winter. The last thing the area needs is more caches that have fallen into a state of disrepair.

 

I also would encourage the CalgaryTowerCachers to consider putting their energy into hiding caches in interesting places, rather than simply because they make an interesting shape on the map, but that's a personal preference. There are hundreds of caches in our area already, and only the most prolific local cachers have found them all -- we really don't need a whole whack of "just for the numbers" hides. OK, editorial mode off.

I would tend to agree with DanOCan here. While I think it is cool to have a well done geoart near my house, I also think that that is a lot of micro caches.

 

Also, I noticed that some of the solved coordinates are right in front of farmer's homes (10 or more of the caches, #28 and #47 are particularly bad). I have heard of several other occasions were upset farmers has resulted in mass archival. It may be worth moving those caches.