Am I the only person who thinks this is too Commercial?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

The only person whose prerogative matters in this discussion is the Reviewer of the cache in question.

That, right there (whether one likes it or not)

Nothing else matters, except an overruling judgment of the next level up.

 

ETA: "They determined it fit the publishing guidelines without violating the 'commercial cache prohibition'." - as PP just mentioned, the active reviewer might have changed since publication, or the CO may have edited the listing since publication. Nonetheless, point #1 still remains: The reviewer's prerogative is the only one that matters.

 

I never anything like "the active reviewer might have changed since publication".

 

What I did say was that "we" have no idea what the original cache submission was presented to the Reviewer. And "we" have no idea just how many times the cache write-up was changed after being published.

 

B.

And yet "we" waste no time in grabbing the torches and pitchforks based on nothing more than speculation. For all "we" know, the cache page submitted for review was no different than it is today.

[Pup Patrol]

For all "we" know, the cache page submitted for review was no different than it is today.

 

Which one of today's versions? The version in the morning that had the store's name in the cache write-up, or the edited version from this afternoon, when the store's name was removed?

 

B.

[+zookeepertx]

...given the information they had available. However, if someone were to bring it to the reviewer's attention that the cache requires finders to go inside the business, I fully expect the cache would be retracted because it shouldn't have been published in the first place.

 

This isn't factually correct. Caches can be inside a business if the reviewer allows it or Groundspeak appeals allows it.

 

My basis for this is submitting a cache within a business and having the reviewer state that they will allow it if Groundspeak gives the okay. Groundspeak allowed the cache. Ultimately, I never published the cache since the business wanted their name on the cache page and I refused to do that.

 

As to what was explained to me, by the reviewer, in regards to the guidelines, is the phrase:

 

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

 

actually means:

 

That you can not require finders to either interact with employees or purchase a product or service.

 

You can ask people to enter a building though, which is subject to the reviewer's interpretation of the commercial aspect.

 

I don't know about that. I tried to place 3 caches in a large RV campground in my town. It's a beautiful campground - well-maintained, pretty pond with a sprayer in the middle, putt-putt course and a building where public events are held. It was rejected on the grounds of it being "commercial" because you had to go "inside" the business (apparently, anyplace inside the boundaries of the park.... oh wait, the rejection also included the lawn out in front of the park). The park's name wasn't in the name or the listing or the description, no interaction with employees was required, no money had to be spent and the park manager was very enthusiastic about having caches there!

 

It REALLY left a bad taste in my mouth!

Edited November 18, 2015 by zookeepertx

[+K13]

I would NEVER go inside an RV park for a cache. There are too many "homes" nearby. Inside a grocery store, I wouldn't feel like I was invading someone's privacy. Two different types of business, so two different experiences. Again, the Reviewer determines which is OK and which is invasive commercial.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

For all "we" know, the cache page submitted for review was no different than it is today.

 

Which one of today's versions? The version in the morning that had the store's name in the cache write-up, or the edited version from this afternoon, when the store's name was removed?

 

B.

 

Both? Either? Neither? I have no idea. You should ask the CO that question.

[+zookeepertx]

I would NEVER go inside an RV park for a cache. There are too many "homes" nearby. Inside a grocery store, I wouldn't feel like I was invading someone's privacy. Two different types of business, so two different experiences. Again, the Reviewer determines which is OK and which is invasive commercial.

 

There are caches in neighborhoods; seems to me to be the same thing. JMHO

Inside a grocery store, I'd be worried about being mistaken for a shoplifter, casing out what I was going to take later.

[+rickdorsey8080]

Good evening. I'm the CO of the cache in question here, and I appreciate all the feedback I've read. Please allow me to clarify some things:

 

1. I am in no way affiliated with the business in question. I'm an active duty Naval officer who regularly shops there.

2. This multi is in a batch of 10 non-traditional caches I created that were published on Sunday in Portsmouth, RI. The cache container location is actually about .4 miles away from the market at a public park. There is a cache already located in the market's parking lot, an LPC.

3. When I originally submitted the cache, I used the market's logo on the page. The reviewer swiftly rejected the cache and brought to light the commercial aspect, which is not allowed. So I refurbished the page, did my best to remove any indication of the name of the market, and re-submitted. The reviewer approved my third attempt at a submission.

4. After its publication on Sunday, there was a member of the local caching community here in Rhode Island that requested this multi not be allowed due to the commercial aspect. The reviewer took his request on board and dismissed it.

5. I was notified this morning (Tuesday, Nov. 17) of the forum discussion here. After reading some valid critiques on this forum, I reviewed the cache again and realized that I had not completely sanitized the name of the market from the cache description. So I went in and edited the name and some pronoun references out. I also re-emphasized in the encrypted hint that no purchase of any item is necessary. And in reality, there's no need to talk to any employee in an effort to figure out the needed numbers for the final location. All that's needed is a keen eye.

 

In a year and a half of geocaching, I've entered numerous businesses to find caches, whether they were sitting next to a cash register in San Antonio, or at a for-profit museums in Connecticut or Minnesota, on the grounds of REI in Seattle. There are cache names that directly use a company's slogan as its own, like "America Runs on Dunkin" (which I found today), or "More Saving, More Doing," or "What Can Brown Do For You?" There are caches at gas stations, Wal-Mart parking lots, malls, restaurants, auto repair shops, etc., and not once did I think they were advertisements or endorsements of the business nearby. I've paid entry fees into private parks to find caches. There are virtuals at all four Disney theme parks in Orlando, which you can't get to if you don't pay the $100 to get in. So what I'm saying is that commercialism is rampant throughout geocaching, like it or not. I did my best to tamp down any reference to the market in the cache name and description.

 

What I tried to create with this puzzle is a fun exploration of a popular location in town. To me it's similar to having to explore a library or museum to get numbers that will take you to a different location. Ironically enough, there is a finale to a local puzzle here located inside the library that is actually a fake book. This is not a precedent-setting cache, and that was not my intention here.

 

I hope this sheds some light on the situation. I appreciate all the feedback. Let's remember this is a fun game that we all play that gets us out and about.

 

Rick Dorsey

[+noncentric]

I would NEVER go inside an RV park for a cache. There are too many "homes" nearby. Inside a grocery store, I wouldn't feel like I was invading someone's privacy. Two different types of business, so two different experiences. Again, the Reviewer determines which is OK and which is invasive commercial.

 

+1

I have entered grocery stores (and other types of stores) without purchasing anything, and never felt uncomfortable. Grocery store employees rarely 'pressure' customers to buy things, unlike clothing or furniture stores where salespeople will approach customers and ask them what they need.

 

Entering an RV park is not like entering a grocery store. I would be uncomfortable walking into an RV park to search for a cache, especially if I didn't have an RV and appear to be a customer. Not all businesses are the same, so a cache at one type of business isn't going to create the same type of interactions as a cache at another type of business.

[+noncentric]

Not really. At least not the guideline that indicates that geocachers shouldn't have to enter a commercial establishment.

As I understand it, the guideline is that cachers shouldn't have to enter the business and interact or purchase. Just entering a business itself can be okay, especially if the business is one (ie, grocery store) where people can enter and walk around without interacting with employees. This is different from a business (ie, restaurant) where people can't just walk around without some employee interaction.

No, the guideline states that cachers shouldn't have to enter the business, interact, and/or purchase. That's a big difference. From Groundspeak's commercial guidelines:

 

Another example of where the serial comma creates ambiguity. Note, the actual guideline does not have a comma after "interact". The portion before the comma could be read as a separate phase in a sequence of events, and the portion after the comma to be a subsequent phase.

 

Imagine a movie theater said "Customer can't enter the theater, talk on their cell phones and/or play music." The items are sequential. Such a sentence means that customers can't enter the theater and then talk on phones and/or play music. The sentence doesn't mean that customers can't enter the theater. The same sentence can be interpreted multiple ways, as is apparent from this thread.

 

My reading of the guideline aligns with what's been noted in a couple other posts (quoted below):

 

From the guidelines you posted above I'm not sure if this type of cache would be prohibited. The comma after the word business leads me to think that the talking to employees or purchasing something is the key.

As to what was explained to me, by the reviewer, in regards to the guidelines, is the phrase:

 

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

 

actually means:

 

That you can not require finders to either interact with employees or purchase a product or service.

 

You can ask people to enter a building though, which is subject to the reviewer's interpretation of the commercial aspect.

[+noncentric]

What I tried to create with this puzzle is a fun exploration of a popular location in town. To me it's similar to having to explore a library or museum to get numbers that will take you to a different location. Ironically enough, there is a finale to a local puzzle here located inside the library that is actually a fake book. This is not a precedent-setting cache, and that was not my intention here.

 

Personally, I think it's a neat idea. Good job with it.

 

We also have a library cache nearby. It's a multi-cache, with all steps inside and a fake book final.

[+justintim1999]

Good evening. I'm the CO of the cache in question here, and I appreciate all the feedback I've read. Please allow me to clarify some things:

 

1. I am in no way affiliated with the business in question. I'm an active duty Naval officer who regularly shops there.

2. This multi is in a batch of 10 non-traditional caches I created that were published on Sunday in Portsmouth, RI. The cache container location is actually about .4 miles away from the market at a public park. There is a cache already located in the market's parking lot, an LPC.

3. When I originally submitted the cache, I used the market's logo on the page. The reviewer swiftly rejected the cache and brought to light the commercial aspect, which is not allowed. So I refurbished the page, did my best to remove any indication of the name of the market, and re-submitted. The reviewer approved my third attempt at a submission.

4. After its publication on Sunday, there was a member of the local caching community here in Rhode Island that requested this multi not be allowed due to the commercial aspect. The reviewer took his request on board and dismissed it.

5. I was notified this morning (Tuesday, Nov. 17) of the forum discussion here. After reading some valid critiques on this forum, I reviewed the cache again and realized that I had not completely sanitized the name of the market from the cache description. So I went in and edited the name and some pronoun references out. I also re-emphasized in the encrypted hint that no purchase of any item is necessary. And in reality, there's no need to talk to any employee in an effort to figure out the needed numbers for the final location. All that's needed is a keen eye.

 

In a year and a half of geocaching, I've entered numerous businesses to find caches, whether they were sitting next to a cash register in San Antonio, or at a for-profit museums in Connecticut or Minnesota, on the grounds of REI in Seattle. There are cache names that directly use a company's slogan as its own, like "America Runs on Dunkin" (which I found today), or "More Saving, More Doing," or "What Can Brown Do For You?" There are caches at gas stations, Wal-Mart parking lots, malls, restaurants, auto repair shops, etc., and not once did I think they were advertisements or endorsements of the business nearby. I've paid entry fees into private parks to find caches. There are virtuals at all four Disney theme parks in Orlando, which you can't get to if you don't pay the $100 to get in. So what I'm saying is that commercialism is rampant throughout geocaching, like it or not. I did my best to tamp down any reference to the market in the cache name and description.

 

What I tried to create with this puzzle is a fun exploration of a popular location in town. To me it's similar to having to explore a library or museum to get numbers that will take you to a different location. Ironically enough, there is a finale to a local puzzle here located inside the library that is actually a fake book. This is not a precedent-setting cache, and that was not my intention here.

 

I hope this sheds some light on the situation. I appreciate all the feedback. Let's remember this is a fun game that we all play that gets us out and about.

 

Rick Dorsey

 

Thanks rickdorsey8080 for placing the cache and taking the time to post this response. And thanks to the reviewer and Groundspeak for publishing it.

[+thebruce0]

Thanks rickdorsey for the level-headed feedback, that's good insight to the listing history; and good job for being proactive!

 

I've learned that any defense for a geocaching practice or idea that starts with something like "But I've seen..." quickly becomes irrelevant, since the No Precedent mantra takes center stage. It really is just about our interaction with our assigned reviewer directly, and how they interpret the guidelines and make their judgment call; even if another local reviewer would have decided differently, it simply doesn't matter.

 

That's a hard bullet to bite, because we sometimes get great ideas from other caches we find, only to find that our idea is denied because a different reviewer felt it broke a guideline, or something changed, or the other reviewer made a mistake. But that's the nature of this beast. C'est la vie.

 

[+CanadianRockies]

I've learned that any defense for a geocaching practice or idea that starts with something like "But I've seen..." quickly becomes irrelevant, since the No Precedent mantra takes center stage. It really is just about our interaction with our assigned reviewer directly, and how they interpret the guidelines and make their judgment call; even if another local reviewer would have decided differently, it simply doesn't matter.

Actually, it isn't just about the assigned reviewer. All reviewers are fallible, so Groundspeak has an appeals process that geocachers can use when they feel a reviewer has made an erroneous judgment call.

 

And, yes, different reviewers might interpret the guidelines differently. But, no, that sometimes does matter. Groundspeak permits fairly wide interpretations regarding certain guidelines. For other guidelines, though, Groundspeak makes a concerted effort to keep the interpretations of the various reviewers within relatively narrow boundaries. That's another reason why Groundspeak has an appeals process.

[+thebruce0]

I've learned that any defense for a geocaching practice or idea that starts with something like "But I've seen..." quickly becomes irrelevant, since the No Precedent mantra takes center stage. It really is just about our interaction with our assigned reviewer directly, and how they interpret the guidelines and make their judgment call; even if another local reviewer would have decided differently, it simply doesn't matter.

Actually, it isn't just about the assigned reviewer. All reviewers are fallible, so Groundspeak has an appeals process that geocachers can use when they feel a reviewer has made an erroneous judgment call.

Yes. If you see in my earlier comments, I made the point that there is a higher level above the reviewer. I thought it would be obvious that "all that matters" was in reference to our immediate 'authority' on the matter being the reviewer -- unless we go above that level. Yes. There is appeals. But that happens after the issue goes beyond the reviewer, which is the only [immediate] judgment that matters.

 

And, yes, different reviewers might interpret the guidelines differently. But, no, that sometimes does matter. Groundspeak permits fairly wide interpretations regarding certain guidelines. For other guidelines, though, Groundspeak makes a concerted effort to keep the interpretations of the various reviewers within relatively narrow boundaries. That's another reason why Groundspeak has an appeals process.

Yep.

And again, they gave all authority to the reviewers to make the judgments without them so that they don't have to deal with it. As I commented before, they certainly can make mistakes. Rules can change. Reviewers can change. For whatever reason, a judgment call may change from publish to report, even years down the line. But from our perspective, having no precedent, we can only look to the current reviewer -- and if we believe there is a problem, we can appeal it. However we also find that in most cases, appeals sides with the reviewer, unless there is a clear misjudgment.

 

ETA: Another way to word what I'm saying: Reviewers and Appeals aren't like Father and Mother when it comes to parental authority. You can't/shouldn't pit one against the other as if both authorities are equal. It's more like a chain of command. Boss has given Supervisor authority over you, and you are solely to report to the Supervisor. But if there is a problem with the Supervisor, you can go over their head. But it's usually a waste of time unless there is a legitimate problem to deal with. Your immediate authority is your supervisor, and you don't want to get on their bad side, they are all that matter. If you exercise your right to go over their head, you enter a new realm of justice with higher stakes, and it's just ultimately better if you know you're correct, than to treat the Big Boss as the same level as your Supervisor

Edited November 18, 2015 by thebruce0

[+CanadianRockies]

I've learned that any defense for a geocaching practice or idea that starts with something like "But I've seen..." quickly becomes irrelevant, since the No Precedent mantra takes center stage. It really is just about our interaction with our assigned reviewer directly, and how they interpret the guidelines and make their judgment call; even if another local reviewer would have decided differently, it simply doesn't matter.

Actually, it isn't just about the assigned reviewer. All reviewers are fallible, so Groundspeak has an appeals process that geocachers can use when they feel a reviewer has made an erroneous judgment call.

Yes. If you see in my earlier comments, I made the point that there is a higher level above the reviewer.

I did see those comments, which was why I was a little surprised that you now were saying things like, "It really is just about our interaction with our assigned reviewer directly..." Especially from someone whose signature line proclaims: "Precision of language!"

 

ETA: Another way to word what I'm saying: Reviewers and Appeals aren't like Father and Mother when it comes to parental authority. You can't/shouldn't pit one against the other as if both authorities are equal. It's more like a chain of command. Boss has given Supervisor authority over you, and you are solely to report to the Supervisor. But if there is a problem with the Supervisor, you can go over their head. But it's usually a waste of time unless there is a legitimate problem to deal with. Your immediate authority is your supervisor, and you don't want to get on their bad side, they are all that matter. If you exercise your right to go over their head, you enter a new realm of justice with higher stakes, and it's just ultimately better if you know you're correct, than to treat the Big Boss as the same level as your Supervisor

Huh? I know one shouldn't want to get on the bad side of reviewers by doing things like lying about how/where one's cache is placed. But I've never heard about any reviewer getting upset when someone "goes over their head." Have you? On several occasions, my reviewer has even encouraged me to take a matter up with appeals. I've never felt like appealing any reviewer decision meant I was entering "a new realm of justice with higher stakes..." And my impression is that Groundspeak doesn't want the appeals process to be viewed that way. But maybe you know differently.

[+GeoTrekker26]

1. I am in no way affiliated with the business in question. I'm an active duty Naval officer who regularly shops there.

 

Thank you sir for your service to our country!

[+thebruce0]

I did see those comments, which was why I was a little surprised that you now were saying things like, "It really is just about our interaction with our assigned reviewer directly..." Especially from someone whose signature line proclaims: "Precision of language!"

The way I understood what I was saying and what I had already said, I thought the implication was clear (that is, it sounded as though you were telling me something I had already posted as though I hadn't already said that very thing).

Clearly I failed in my precision.

 

ETA: Another way to word what I'm saying: Reviewers and Appeals aren't like Father and Mother when it comes to parental authority. You can't/shouldn't pit one against the other as if both authorities are equal. It's more like a chain of command. Boss has given Supervisor authority over you, and you are solely to report to the Supervisor. But if there is a problem with the Supervisor, you can go over their head. But it's usually a waste of time unless there is a legitimate problem to deal with. Your immediate authority is your supervisor, and you don't want to get on their bad side, they are all that matter. If you exercise your right to go over their head, you enter a new realm of justice with higher stakes, and it's just ultimately better if you know you're correct, than to treat the Big Boss as the same level as your Supervisor

Huh? I know one shouldn't want to get on the bad side of reviewers by doing things like lying about how/where one's cache is placed. But I've never heard about any reviewer getting upset when someone "goes over their head." Have you?

Upset after one instance? Not specifically. But if a reviewer's judgment is consistently questioned, especially if consistently denied, yes you can certainly get in a reviewer's bad books. I'd be surprised if you've never ever even heard a hint of such a thing happening in this global community.

 

On several occasions, my reviewer has even encouraged me to take a matter up with appeals.

Yep, certainly. That usually means that they're pretty confident in their judgment and don't expect a counter judgment, but are of course open to the possibility. That is, they aren't going to change their decision just because you say you're going to appeal it. Their only real response is to suggest going to appeals, or agree that that is your best course of action if you really disagree with their judgment.

 

I've never felt like appealing any reviewer decision meant I was entering "a new realm of justice with higher stakes..."

...Note the tonguey.

Do you not agree that going to appeals shouldn't be a right that is abused, but used wisely? For one, if you're consistently and legitimately (successfully) going to appeals, it means they have a problem with their reviewer(s), or their own guidelines. Otherwise, you either don't trust their reviewers (even though you're repeatedly denied), or you just like to tattle. (You in the general sense, of course).

In their ideal system, appeals is rarely used, because the reviewers are sufficiently competent and knowledgable, the guidelines are clear and reasonable, and the users sufficiently trust the reviewers' judgment - allowing for occasional innocent mistakes to be made. If only our system were so ideal!

 

And my impression is that Groundspeak doesn't want the appeals process to be viewed that way. But maybe you know differently.

You think appeals wants to be contacted repeatedly and unnecessarily quite often? It's there as a last resort. They want you to deal with things with your reviewer (just like the reviewer would ask you to first try to resolve disputes between you and another cacher yourselves). They don't want you to abuse the appeals process. They want you to trust their judgment about whom they grant reviewer privileges. If there's a legitimate error in the process, then you go to appeals - whether that's for an instance of a reviewer's judgment, or about Groundspeak's own judgment about a reviewer.

 

But outside of that, the assigned Reviewer is our go-to authority, not Appeals.

[+CanadianRockies]

ETA: Another way to word what I'm saying: Reviewers and Appeals aren't like Father and Mother when it comes to parental authority. You can't/shouldn't pit one against the other as if both authorities are equal. It's more like a chain of command. Boss has given Supervisor authority over you, and you are solely to report to the Supervisor. But if there is a problem with the Supervisor, you can go over their head. But it's usually a waste of time unless there is a legitimate problem to deal with. Your immediate authority is your supervisor, and you don't want to get on their bad side, they are all that matter. If you exercise your right to go over their head, you enter a new realm of justice with higher stakes, and it's just ultimately better if you know you're correct, than to treat the Big Boss as the same level as your Supervisor

Huh? I know one shouldn't want to get on the bad side of reviewers by doing things like lying about how/where one's cache is placed. But I've never heard about any reviewer getting upset when someone "goes over their head." Have you?

Upset after one instance? Not specifically. But if a reviewer's judgment is consistently questioned, especially if consistently denied, yes you can certainly get in a reviewer's bad books. I'd be surprised if you've never ever even heard a hint of such a thing happening in this global community.

I've never heard of anyone who has consistently questioned a reviewer's judgment, much less consistently gotten it overturned. So, no, I've never heard of such a thing happening. It sounds like you might have, though. Care to share?

 

On several occasions, my reviewer has even encouraged me to take a matter up with appeals.

Yep, certainly. That usually means that they're pretty confident in their judgment and don't expect a counter judgment, but are of course open to the possibility. That is, they aren't going to change their decision just because you say you're going to appeal it. Their only real response is to suggest going to appeals, or agree that that is your best course of action if you really disagree with their judgment.

One time, they probably were fairly sure of their judgment (regarding an unwritten Groundspeak policy). The other two times, they were unsure what Groundspeak's decision would be; they were as curious as I was what Seattle would decide. That sometimes happens when you push the envelope.

 

I've never felt like appealing any reviewer decision meant I was entering "a new realm of justice with higher stakes..."

...Note the tonguey.

Do you not agree that going to appeals shouldn't be a right that is abused, but used wisely? For one, if you're consistently and legitimately (successfully) going to appeals, it means they have a problem with their reviewer(s), or their own guidelines. Otherwise, you either don't trust their reviewers (even though you're repeatedly denied), or you just like to tattle. (You in the general sense, of course).

In their ideal system, appeals is rarely used, because the reviewers are sufficiently competent and knowledgable, the guidelines are clear and reasonable, and the users sufficiently trust the reviewers' judgment - allowing for occasional innocent mistakes to be made.

Good grief! Nobody is arguing that the appeals process should be abused. In addition to your list of abuses, geocachers can legitimately use the appeals process in this less-than-ideal world because human reviewers make errors, because the reviewers sometimes are simply unsure how a particular guideline should be interpreted, or because the inconsistency of certain reviewer interpretations should be reduced.

 

And my impression is that Groundspeak doesn't want the appeals process to be viewed that way. But maybe you know differently.

You think appeals wants to be contacted repeatedly and unnecessarily quite often? It's there as a last resort. They want you to deal with things with your reviewer (just like the reviewer would ask you to first try to resolve disputes between you and another cacher yourselves). They don't want you to abuse the appeals process. They want you to trust their judgment about whom they grant reviewer privileges. If there's a legitimate error in the process, then you go to appeals - whether that's for an instance of a reviewer's judgment, or about Groundspeak's own judgment about a reviewer.

There you go arguing with a straw man again. I never said Groundspeak Appeals wants to be contacted unnecessarily, that they aren't a last resort, or that they don't want you to deal with and trust your reviewer. Who would say such a thing?

 

Please reread my comments. I said I don't believe Groundspeak wants you to feel that appealing the decision of a reviewer is entering "a new realm of justice with higher stakes..." If you appeal a reviewer decision, you shouldn't feel like you will "get on their bad side" or that reviewers are "all that matter."

Edited November 18, 2015 by CanadianRockies

[+thebruce0]

I've never heard of anyone who has consistently questioned a reviewer's judgment, much less consistently gotten it overturned. So, no, I've never heard of such a thing happening. It sounds like you might have, though. Care to share?

Nope because they're private matters.

 

One time, they probably were fairly sure of their judgment (regarding an unwritten Groundspeak policy). The other two times, they were unsure what Groundspeak's decision would be; they were as curious as I was what Seattle would decide. That sometimes happens when you push the envelope.

Yep.

 

Nobody is arguing that the appeals process should be abused. In addition to your list of abuses, geocachers can legitimately use the appeals process in this less-than-ideal world because human reviewers make errors, because the reviewers sometimes are simply unsure how a particular guideline should be interpreted, or because the inconsistency of certain reviewer interpretations should be reduced.

Yep. I covered each of those situations above.

 

There you go arguing with a straw man again. I never said Groundspeak Appeals wants to be contacted unnecessarily, that they aren't a last resort, or that they don't want you to deal with and trust your reviewer. Who would say such a thing?

 

Please reread my comments. I said I don't believe Groundspeak wants you to feel that appealing the decision of a reviewer is entering "a new realm of justice with higher stakes..." If you appeal a reviewer decision, you shouldn't feel like you will "get on their bad side" or that reviewers are "all that matter."

1) That quote you picked out was hyperbole. The point was that Appeals is a higher authority than reviewers. So yes, it's a different level of decision-making. How we feel about it is subjective and irrelevant. Objectively, Appeals is higher than the Reviewer, and it is the Reviewer we deal with first and foremost. That is my point. Not to the exclusion of being allowed to deal with Appeals.

2) "You shouldn't feel like..." Subjective. Some people do. It all depends on the situation. You can't say that every single situation out there has zero chance of someone feeling like (regardless of Groundspeak's intent) they might get on a reviewer's bad side by appealing and/or complaining above the reviewer's head. It doesn't happen all the time. It does happen.

3) Again, "all that matters" is not a statement that Reviewer judgments are the be all and end all. It is merely the point that whenever a decision is made, the Reviewer is our first and foremost resource, the primary decision maker as far as we are concerned - until and unless there is problem. We don't go first to appeals, we go first to the reviewer.

4) I don't know any other way I can say it without repeating even more, and I'm confident you understand the point I'm making. I don't think we disagree at all on principle, and I really don't want to keep bickering about language and semantics, so I'm going to step back now before I make this any worse.

[Cascade Reviewer]

Sometimes, when someone goes to appeals, it's just to confirm to the CO that the reviewer was correct in their judgement.

 

But reviewers only have so much latitude in the decisions that they can make. Because Groundspeak is the ultimate judge, sometimes it's nice for a reviewer to be able to refer a CO to appeals to see if Groundspeak will ok something that the reviewer cannot.

 

It's not necessarily a situation where a CO is "going over a reviewer's head" or something. Both reviewers and Groundspeak are happy when a cache can be published. More caches the better. We're not trying to be punitive, and most often, reviewers are completely fine when a CO goes to appeals.

[+thebruce0]

Indeed. But again, the reviewer understands the limitation of their rights and informs the CO to go to appeals. Reviewer --> Appeals. It's the process I'm focusing on, not the technicalities of who does what. We go to the Reviewer. If we go first to Appeals, they'll suggest to contact your local reviewer first. Of course that's not a rule and the person may decide to handle it themselves, but that is generally what is going to happen; that's the structure and general practice that's set up. Reviewer first, then Appeals.

[Cascade Reviewer]

Indeed. But again, the reviewer understands the limitation of their rights and informs the CO to go to appeals. Reviewer --> Appeals. It's the process I'm focusing on, not the technicalities of who does what. We go to the Reviewer. If we go first to Appeals, they'll suggest to contact your local reviewer first. Of course that's not a rule and the person may decide to handle it themselves, but that is generally what is going to happen; that's the structure and general practice that's set up. Reviewer first, then Appeals.

 

True.

[+Colonial Cats]

So its ok to run around a store to get the numbers, but not ok to have a cache in a campground? <_< <_<

 

Maybe the store owner wants people to come in, and be tempted to purchase something while hunting for coordinates, even though a purchase is not required to find the cache.

 

Maybe the campground owner does not want strangers wandering around their property. Maybe strangers wandering around upsets the residents or ends up with landscaping being destroyed.

 

Comparing apples and lemons...

 

B.

 

There was at least one cache submitted that would have taken finders into a privately owned campground. Permission was gained from the campground owner and it was stated that entrance was free with no interaction of employees necessary. It was denied for being too commercial. Sounds like this is pretty much the same thing.

A cache can be on commercial property without being a commercial cache. Depending on how the cache page is written, there should not be any problem. Of course there could not be any strings attached to the commercial location. A cache placed for caching sake should be fine.

[+zookeepertx]

So its ok to run around a store to get the numbers, but not ok to have a cache in a campground? <_< <_<

 

Maybe the store owner wants people to come in, and be tempted to purchase something while hunting for coordinates, even though a purchase is not required to find the cache.

 

Maybe the campground owner does not want strangers wandering around their property. Maybe strangers wandering around upsets the residents or ends up with landscaping being destroyed.

 

Comparing apples and lemons...

 

B.

 

There was at least one cache submitted that would have taken finders into a privately owned campground. Permission was gained from the campground owner and it was stated that entrance was free with no interaction of employees necessary. It was denied for being too commercial. Sounds like this is pretty much the same thing.

A cache can be on commercial property without being a commercial cache. Depending on how the cache page is written, there should not be any problem. Of course there could not be any strings attached to the commercial location. A cache placed for caching sake should be fine.

 

In my case, the RV park owner was VERY enthusiastic about having caches in the park and they wouldn't have been near any of the campsites - 2 would have been located along the outside perimeter, somewhat remote from the sites. The 3rd would have been on a pavilion were activities are held. There were absolutely no strings attached to the commercial location - not even in the names of the caches! No purchase was required; in fact, there isn't even anything there that one CAN purchase! When the reviewer rejected all 3 (in no uncertain term) that there was NO way I could have the caches in there, I tried 2 new locations that were outside of the park area itself and was very brusquely shut down.

 

I'm still a bit hesitant to try to place anymore caches; I have concerns whether I'll get one approved. I'll probably try again, though; I ran across an AWESOME location that just really NEEDS to have a cache, LOL!

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

So its ok to run around a store to get the numbers, but not ok to have a cache in a campground? <_< <_<

 

Maybe the store owner wants people to come in, and be tempted to purchase something while hunting for coordinates, even though a purchase is not required to find the cache.

 

Maybe the campground owner does not want strangers wandering around their property. Maybe strangers wandering around upsets the residents or ends up with landscaping being destroyed.

 

Comparing apples and lemons...

 

B.

 

There was at least one cache submitted that would have taken finders into a privately owned campground. Permission was gained from the campground owner and it was stated that entrance was free with no interaction of employees necessary. It was denied for being too commercial. Sounds like this is pretty much the same thing.

A cache can be on commercial property without being a commercial cache. Depending on how the cache page is written, there should not be any problem. Of course there could not be any strings attached to the commercial location. A cache placed for caching sake should be fine.

 

In my case, the RV park owner was VERY enthusiastic about having caches in the park and they wouldn't have been near any of the campsites - 2 would have been located along the outside perimeter, somewhat remote from the sites. The 3rd would have been on a pavilion were activities are held. There were absolutely no strings attached to the commercial location - not even in the names of the caches! No purchase was required; in fact, there isn't even anything there that one CAN purchase! When the reviewer rejected all 3 (in no uncertain term) that there was NO way I could have the caches in there, I tried 2 new locations that were outside of the park area itself and was very brusquely shut down.

 

I'm still a bit hesitant to try to place anymore caches; I have concerns whether I'll get one approved. I'll probably try again, though; I ran across an AWESOME location that just really NEEDS to have a cache, LOL!

 

It's does get a bit confusing, especially when you see a cache like GC3XZMX. It was probably accepted because it was part of a GeoTour.

 

Skye.

[+zookeepertx]

 

In my case, the RV park owner was VERY enthusiastic about having caches in the park and they wouldn't have been near any of the campsites - 2 would have been located along the outside perimeter, somewhat remote from the sites. The 3rd would have been on a pavilion were activities are held. There were absolutely no strings attached to the commercial location - not even in the names of the caches! No purchase was required; in fact, there isn't even anything there that one CAN purchase! When the reviewer rejected all 3 (in no uncertain term) that there was NO way I could have the caches in there, I tried 2 new locations that were outside of the park area itself and was very brusquely shut down.

 

I'm still a bit hesitant to try to place anymore caches; I have concerns whether I'll get one approved. I'll probably try again, though; I ran across an AWESOME location that just really NEEDS to have a cache, LOL!

 

It's does get a bit confusing, especially when you see a cache like GC3XZMX. It was probably accepted because it was part of a GeoTour.

 

Skye.

 

Wow! Just... wow! So, the name of the establishment is in the cache name and in the description - which also includes the name of another business AND links to businesses and services. And goes so far as to encourage cachers to patronize the establishments! DANG!

[+K13]

In my case, the RV park owner was VERY enthusiastic about having caches in the park and they wouldn't have been near any of the campsites - 2 would have been located along the outside perimeter, somewhat remote from the sites. The 3rd would have been on a pavilion were activities are held. There were absolutely no strings attached to the commercial location - not even in the names of the caches! No purchase was required; in fact, there isn't even anything there that one CAN purchase! When the reviewer rejected all 3 (in no uncertain term) that there was NO way I could have the caches in there, I tried 2 new locations that were outside of the park area itself and was very brusquely shut down.

 

I'm still a bit hesitant to try to place anymore caches; I have concerns whether I'll get one approved. I'll probably try again, though; I ran across an AWESOME location that just really NEEDS to have a cache, LOL!

 

It's does get a bit confusing, especially when you see a cache like GC3XZMX. It was probably accepted because it was part of a GeoTour.

 

Skye.

 

Wow! Just... wow! So, the name of the establishment is in the cache name and in the description - which also includes the name of another business AND links to businesses and services. And goes so far as to encourage cachers to patronize the establishments! DANG!

 

Other caches do not make for a precedence, and THERE ARE NO COMMERCIAL RULES FOR CACHES THAT ARE A PART OF A GEOTOUR.

[+the3gmen]

I would be less concerned about it being commercial and more about it being a multi and not an unknown (puzzle} cache.

[+narcissa]

I would be less concerned about it being commercial and more about it being a multi and not an unknown (puzzle} cache.

 

It's an excellent use of the multi-cache type, actually.

[+SwineFlew]

So its ok to run around a store to get the numbers, but not ok to have a cache in a campground? <_< <_<

 

Maybe the store owner wants people to come in, and be tempted to purchase something while hunting for coordinates, even though a purchase is not required to find the cache.

 

Maybe the campground owner does not want strangers wandering around their property. Maybe strangers wandering around upsets the residents or ends up with landscaping being destroyed.

 

Comparing apples and lemons...

 

B.

My sarcasm really failed here.

[+thebruce0]

Needs moar shifty-eyes...

[+vw_k]

What I tried to create with this puzzle is a fun exploration of a popular location in town.

 

Popular location? Am I the only one who HATES grocery shopping?

[+The Jester]

What I tried to create with this puzzle is a fun exploration of a popular location in town.

 

Popular location? Am I the only one who HATES grocery shopping?

You must be, I like to eat and find most of the ingrediants I need to cook are found in grocery stores.

[+narcissa]

What I tried to create with this puzzle is a fun exploration of a popular location in town.

 

Popular location? Am I the only one who HATES grocery shopping?

You must be, I like to eat and find most of the ingrediants I need to cook are found in grocery stores.

 

Grocery shopping is one of the only times I get to be alone with my thoughts.