Jump to content

How does one become a "preferred" cache hider?


archiedais
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

I know such a thing doesn't officially exist, but unofficially it clearly does. In My area, Minnesota, I have been hassled to death by one reviewer. Everything I have ever had reviewed by that reviewer has been questioned over and over. I even had to get my wife to submit a letter for permission for a hide on my own property! I am a fairly experienced and very responsible adult cacher and have NEVER had any issues in placing or finding geocaches that may have caused any doubt.

 

By contrast, there are many geocaches placed in my area where there is clearly no permission received. Just one typical example are DNA tubes that are stuck to everything on public and private property. Many of them on beacons and in locations that geocaches are not allowed. They are often placed by geocachers who live far away, do not perform maintenance, and do not have someone help maintain hides and who do not remove them when archived. Are these COs being allowed to make these placements or are they just lying to reviewers? Are they submitting false information? Or am I just being targeted? I have no issue with the throw down tubes. If that's what someone wants to hide I am fine with it, as long as the review process is the same.

 

I understand that reviewing is subjective and probably very difficult. I very much appreciate the thankless job reviewers do. I also understand that a reviewer cant be expected to get it right every time. I just don't see why my well thought out caches are such a hassle to get published and others seem to get carte blanche when it comes to the rules.

 

How does one get carte blanche regarding hiding geocaches? Or am I just all wet and everyone gets treated the same?

Link to comment

We've seen Reviewers treat everyone equally, unless they've had issues with someone repeatedly "stretching" the guidelines, or outright lying about placement/permission.

- Then it's cross every t. :laughing:

 

You seem to have a good assortment of hide types, and had a couple just published.

May be how you feel, but as an outsider, guess I don't see the problem.

Have you discussed it with others locally?

Link to comment

Is this subject some sort of taboo? I didn't really search too much, maybe I am not allowed to ask about it?

 

I am not taking it personally, I just want to learn. The link really doesn't address my issue. I understand the reviewers are doing their jos and I just want to understand how to help them do it more efficiently. Their time is valuable. They spend a lot of time pouring over my hides and it seems there is a better way I could do this to help streamline the process. My time is also valuable and a smoother submittal process would allow me to create more and better geocaches.

 

It is not my intent to criticize the reviewers. Not the one involved in my situation or any other reviewers. I am grateful for them all and I appreciate their efforts. I just see that the process appears to work differently for different cache hiders and I am wondering how I can do this better.

 

No offense intended!

Link to comment

Yes, I have discussed it with local geocachers. Some have never been asked for proof of permission nor had any questions raised and some have felt as I do, that they are required to jump through an excessive amount of hoops just to publish a straight forward geocache. I am the only one I have ever heard of who wasn't allowed a cache on property I manage because I didn't have permission(from myself) though. I think that is excessive. It is also notable that another geocache was hidden and published by a different CO on this same piece of property, THAT I MANAGE, without my permission, by the same reviewer. I would have given the permission, that's not the point.

 

local geocachers also tell me that some COs are "preferred" and that is where this question stems from. I have never in any way stretched guidelines or even submitted anything even remotely questionable from a guideline (or any other) standpoint.

 

Again, please realize this is not meant to be critical of any reviewer, I just want to know how this is done so that I may become more effective at hiding geocaches. I also am not interested in any type of appeal or reporting of any reviewers. I support them fully and respect their decisions, even though I think I am being unfairly scrutinized.

Link to comment

One of your newer caches appears right next to a house. The reviewer questioned whether this was correct. As reviewers, we see *A LOT* of coordinate typos, so that is what your reviewer was asking. For some reason, you took this as being accused as lying. Trust me, this was not the case. I would have asked the same thing. If the homes in this area were removed, fine - please say this in a reviewer note during review. That does not reflect what google maps says and removing homes is a very unusual step so I don't blame the reviewer for assuming maps were correct.

 

Another one I assume is in the same area as where the houses were removed, so naturally the reviewer would question that. Don't assume that if they are in the same area the reviewer will remember the details about the houses being removed. It's best to state this up front.

 

Your event was originally submitted with the wrong state.

 

Another unpublished cache was too close to the final of a multi.

 

I see one more that was on some private club land that the reviewer asked you about, but most of your other caches seemed to be published right away.

 

Another 2 times the reviewer questioned the accuracy of the coords based on the map and you then fixed them before publication.

 

I don't see any issues with the reviews here. You seemed upset about the cache near a house. You have to remember that reviewers do not go out and visit the cache sites, they rely on multiple map sources to see where the caches are. If there is something questionable, they are going to ask you about it.

Edited by Sapience Trek
Link to comment

local geocachers also tell me that some COs are "preferred" and that is where this question stems from.

 

:rolleyes: OK, then I'd have to say your "local" is either pulling your leg or has an active imagination. I don't expect you to defend that statement, so it might be best to invite this "local" of yours to explain what they mean.

 

For me, the notion that there is some "preferred" status will get filed in the same category as "...some Reviewers are dogs", and that HQ Servers are powered by hamsters (i.e. Urban myth).

Link to comment

Like Sapience Trek, I also looked through all of your prior hides. About 18 of them were published on the day submitted or the next day after submission, by several different reviewers, without any comments from you or any questions from the reviewer.

 

I would not have published ANY of your caches without first receiving a summary of how the cache is hidden, and what container was used.

 

Therefore, I'd conclude that you are already a preferred cache hider with your local reviewers! (Seriously, there is no such thing, formally or informally.)

 

Clearly, you are overreacting to an innocent question about the coordinate location relative to what the reviewer saw on the map. Twice this past week alone, I've caught mistakes made by cache owners when entering their coordinates. They thanked me profusely for catching their innocent mistakes. Here's one example of a better reaction to a reviewer who questions your coordinates:

 

ca65bbbd-a07d-4618-b981-197fcf2f8eb4.jpg

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

One more thing...

Everything I have ever had reviewed by that reviewer has been questioned over and over.

I see that this reviewer published no fewer than ten of your caches on a same-day or next-day basis, with no questions or comments on the cache page whatsoever prior to the "published" log. (Remember, I can see the archived logs.) Did the questioning "over and over" take place via email or text message, etc., and very rapidly? That seems inefficient.

 

Help us understand the factual basis for your statement.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

If the homes in this area were removed, fine - please say this in a reviewer note during review. That does not reflect what google maps says and removing homes is a very unusual step so I don't blame the reviewer for assuming maps were correct.

 

There are multiple ways of using google maps and the satellite view. Interestingly, one shows the houses, one does not. It appears that some "catch up" has to happen within the google images before all views of the area show it house free.

 

It's always a good idea to put information in a reviewer note about how the cache is hidden, the land status, especially if you know it recently changed.

Link to comment
How does one get carte blanche regarding hiding geocaches? Or am I just all wet and everyone gets treated the same?

I would imagine no one gets carte blanche, heck, even when my player account hides a cache, I ask a different reviewer to look it over to make sure I didn't make a flub. There may be some hiders who get more or less questions based on previous hides.

 

I can tell you, in my last 10 caches that required a reviewer note there were:

-In front of someone's house that wasn't theirs

-A parking coordinate and posted coordinate the same (one was obviously wrong)

-A couple of general proximity issues

-A couple of people that provided no information on hides/location/etc

 

When I review a cache, I read the cache page, read the note(s) provided by the cache owner and look at the maps. When two of them don't match what I expect, I ask questions. Sometimes the answer is that the maps are outdated, sometimes I get more info that lets me publish, sometimes I get info that doesn't let me publish, sometimes it points an issue out to the cache owner.

 

We ask the questions we need to be able to feel comfortable that ones' listing meets the guidelines and are publishable.

Link to comment

If the homes in this area were removed, fine - please say this in a reviewer note during review. That does not reflect what google maps says and removing homes is a very unusual step so I don't blame the reviewer for assuming maps were correct.

When I review a cache, I read the cache page, read the note(s) provided by the cache owner and look at the maps. When two of them don't match what I expect, I ask questions. Sometimes the answer is that the maps are outdated, sometimes I get more info that lets me publish, sometimes I get info that doesn't let me publish, sometimes it points an issue out to the cache owner.

The funny thing is, the reviewer here even allowed for the possibility of the maps being wrong -- all that the CO needed to do was say "yes, the maps are wrong." Quoting from the reviewer's note in relevant part:

 

If you believe your coordinates are in error then please edit your cache listing to fix the problem. If you believe they are correct, then please let me know. I'd also appreciate it in this case if you'd let me know a little more about the hide - where it is exactly, if this is public land or private, any permission you've obtained, etc. If the Google Map is also out of date then please let me know.

This to me is a reasonable note.

Link to comment
How does one get carte blanche regarding hiding geocaches? Or am I just all wet and everyone gets treated the same?

Let me tell you what happened the one and only time I gave a hider carte blanche on a hide. This was years ago before we had Favorite Points, but when I look now, that same cacher's hides all have lots of Favorite Points. I lived and cached in his area, and found many of his hides, and knew they were good and adhered to the guidelines. So one day I'm going through the Review Queue, and the last one in the list was by this hider. It was getting late and I was tired, and I "trusted" this hider, so I barely looked at it, and simply hit the Publish button. Then I went to bed.

 

The next morning I opened my email and Holy Smokes, Batman! Dozens of emails all about this one cache. Including one from the CO himself. It turned out there was a typo in the coords. The whole degrees was off by one. This put the coords smack in the middle of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, one of the most secure military bases in the area.

 

Trust me. I learned a lesson that day.

Link to comment

You don't know what is happening behind the scenes with other cache owners and reviewers. Focus on following the guidelines and communicating well with the reviewer and don't worry about everyone else so much.

 

If you find a cache in the field that violates guidelines, report it.

Link to comment
How does one get carte blanche regarding hiding geocaches? Or am I just all wet and everyone gets treated the same?
Let me tell you what happened the one and only time I gave a hider carte blanche on a hide.

 

So this illustrates what I was asking about. The fact that carte blanche or preferred hiders or whatever term you wish to use does in fact happen. I was only asking how does one attain this status, but I see now that is a touchy subject.

 

Regarding my recent interactions with one reviewer it is important to note that communication between us is done via email, at the reviewers request. Selective emails or portions thereof are then pasted into a reviewer note by the reviewer. I have answered all the reviewers questions regarding the inaccuracy of the Google maps numerous times both in the past and now again during this new cache. This reviewer has all the information requested and still will not publish. Our conversations are not accurately nor fully reflected in the reviewer notes. I understand the concept of reviewing to prevent errors and issues with cache placement mistakes, and I appreciate the reviewers help in getting it right. I do not understand why I am told by the reviewer that "I do not believe you hid the cache where you said" even though they are FULLY aware no houses exist in this area.

 

This was not meant to be a complaint about a particular reviewer. I respect all the reviewers for their contributions, including this reviewer. I was only trying to learn how to streamline the process to save both myself and the reviewer some time. It seems a waste of everyones time to go through the effort of hiding cache and then providing all pertinent information to a reviewer only to be called a liar and receive another round of questions. Thanks to the few who actually tried to give some insight.

 

This thread seems to have deteriorated surprisingly quickly to a tone that I don't think is productive for anyone. I did not intend to start an issue with any particular reviewer, yet that seems to be how many responders on here are taking it. My apologies if my question came across as an attack on any particular reviewer. I was asking an honest question that now seems to be too touchy for the forum so I will exit the thread here. Thank you everyone for the input and thanks for all you do for the geocaching community.

Link to comment
How does one get carte blanche regarding hiding geocaches? Or am I just all wet and everyone gets treated the same?
Let me tell you what happened the one and only time I gave a hider carte blanche on a hide.

 

So this illustrates what I was asking about. The fact that carte blanche or preferred hiders or whatever term you wish to use does in fact happen. I was only asking how does one attain this status, but I see now that is a touchy subject.

The fact that things were done fast and loose in 2003 doesn't mean they're still done that way today. We learned from our early mistakes.

 

Back in 2003, it was possible to press a button labeled "Approve from Queue" without opening the page and studying the details. That feature has been gone for more than a decade, because it no longer worked once land manager regulations became abundant.

 

Regarding my recent interactions with one reviewer it is important to note that communication between us is done via email, at the reviewers request.
So you are saying that, for the ten caches he published on the same day or the next day, he emailed back and forth with you several times during the day? But other times, he left a log on your listing?
Selective emails or portions thereof are then pasted into a reviewer note by the reviewer. I have answered all the reviewers questions regarding the inaccuracy of the Google maps numerous times both in the past and now again during this new cache. This reviewer has all the information requested and still will not publish.

You said you were moving the cache, then you enabled the listing again at the same coordinates. Your reviewer asked for clarification, since we don't like getting burned for publishing a cache that is not in place at the time of publication. Specifically, the reviewer asked:

If you want to proceed with publishing this listing then can you please clarify if the cache is still at the coordinates or not? Your latest reviewer note indicated that you will move the hide but then you resubmitted the listing for publication at the same coordinates. I am no longer sure if the hide is there or not.

This is a simple question requiring an answer like "yes, the cache is still there - I did not remove it like I said before." It does not call for rants like "now you question my integrity." I bet that if you tried again from scratch and clearly confirmed that the cache is in place, with no other editorializing, your reviewer would press the publish button.

 

I was only trying to learn how to streamline the process to save both myself and the reviewer some time. It seems a waste of everyones time to go through the effort of hiding cache and then providing all pertinent information to a reviewer only to be called a liar and receive another round of questions.
You can streamline the process by providing an upfront reviewer note at the time of initial submission. Example: "This is a bison tube hanging from a bush in the greenway. There used to be houses in the area but they've been torn down - Google maps hasn't caught up with this."

 

I can see no place on the listing in question where the reviewer said you're a liar; to the contrary, his most recent note reacted to that impression by stating "Nobody is accusing you of lying." Did the accusation take place in one of these emails you referenced?

 

This thread seems to have deteriorated surprisingly quickly to a tone that I don't think is productive for anyone. I did not intend to start an issue with any particular reviewer, yet that seems to be how many responders on here are taking it. My apologies if my question came across as an attack on any particular reviewer. I was asking an honest question that now seems to be too touchy for the forum so I will exit the thread here. Thank you everyone for the input and thanks for all you do for the geocaching community.

I think the thread remains productive for those who read it, in order to gain insight into the review process. Several reviewers have participated - more than in an average thread. And, we're quite used to accusations. Please stay in the thread and back up those accusations with facts!
Link to comment

I do not understand why I am told by the reviewer that "I do not believe you hid the cache where you said" even though they are FULLY aware no houses exist in this area.

Are you sure they were aware? Remember that reviewers are generally reviewing a large number of cache listings over a wide area, so the specific details of one residential area may be quickly forgotten. When you describe your hide in a reviewer note (you are doing that for EVERY cache, right?), give the reviewer every piece of information they need to make an informed decision about your cache. If Google Maps is wrong, describe how. If you don't think you need explicit permission, explain why. Don't assume that they remember all the details from past reviews in that area. The onus is on you to prove to the reviewer that your cache should be published, so give them all the evidence you have.

Link to comment

That's great advice, and squares with what the reviewer wrote in a reviewer note on the cache listing:

 

I'm sorry I don't recall the fact that the map imagery here has changed recently. Unfortunately I also do not recall publishing your previous caches here or caches belonging to others. When I am done reviewing a cache page I dismiss the information. I don't recall the fact that the maps are incorrect. I see the most recent cache of yours that I published was almost exactly a year ago. Had you read the guidelines, in particular [Guideline link], you would have noted "If you believe that special circumstances may affect whether or not your cache listing is published, post a Reviewer Note on the cache listing." This is something you did a year ago, but since you didn't do it this time it's suddenly apparently my fault for not remembering. I look at hundreds of cache pages each month. It's impossible for me to remember unique qualities about a particular area from year to year.
Link to comment

We try and choose our words carefully to make sure that they can't be interpreted improperly. Nowhere did your reviewer call you a liar or question your integrity. All they wanted was clarification, which is needed on a large portion of the caches submitted.

 

Most of us use templates in our responses, which we routinely tweak over the years to try and convey as much information as possible, in as few words as possible. If we have too few words, we won't get our meaning across. If we have too many words, the notes won't be completely read or understood. In the balance to be brief and concise, it's possible that sometimes a cache owner may read a reviewer note in the way it was not intended. I know for sure that this is what happened here.

Link to comment

Most of us use templates in our responses,

 

I think that while it is understandable while most reviewers use templates that's part of the problem and in particular when someone is not aware that the text which is sent is a template or built from templates and expects the formulation to have been chosen exactly for the concrete case. Template texts are efficient but they never can choose the optimal formulation for every specific case.

Link to comment

Most of us use templates in our responses,

 

I think that while it is understandable while most reviewers use templates that's part of the problem and in particular when someone is not aware that the text which is sent is a template or built from templates and expects the formulation to have been chosen exactly for the concrete case. Template texts are efficient but they never can choose the optimal formulation for every specific case.

 

A template is used as a starting point and tweaked according to the need. So they are almost always chosen exactly for the concrete case and modified as needed. In some cases modification is not needed (such as proximity problems, which are very common.)

Link to comment

I know such a thing doesn't officially exist, but unofficially it clearly does. In My area, Minnesota, I have been hassled to death by one reviewer. Everything I have ever had reviewed by that reviewer has been questioned over and over. I even had to get my wife to submit a letter for permission for a hide on my own property! I am a fairly experienced and very responsible adult cacher and have NEVER had any issues in placing or finding geocaches that may have caused any doubt.

 

By contrast, there are many geocaches placed in my area where there is clearly no permission received. Just one typical example are DNA tubes that are stuck to everything on public and private property. Many of them on beacons and in locations that geocaches are not allowed. They are often placed by geocachers who live far away, do not perform maintenance, and do not have someone help maintain hides and who do not remove them when archived. Are these COs being allowed to make these placements or are they just lying to reviewers? Are they submitting false information? Or am I just being targeted? I have no issue with the throw down tubes. If that's what someone wants to hide I am fine with it, as long as the review process is the same.

 

I understand that reviewing is subjective and probably very difficult. I very much appreciate the thankless job reviewers do. I also understand that a reviewer cant be expected to get it right every time. I just don't see why my well thought out caches are such a hassle to get published and others seem to get carte blanche when it comes to the rules.

 

How does one get carte blanche regarding hiding geocaches? Or am I just all wet and everyone gets treated the same?

 

I understand how you feel. I think where some premium members are only required adequate permission the same reviewer would require that I get exquisite permission and provide a contact number. I don't think it's fair either, and because of it I don't think I'll be placing any new geocaches to be approved by one reviewer. I don't have the same problem working with other reviewers, so I agree with you that there are preferred cache hiders that some reviewers favor over others.

Link to comment
I was only trying to learn how to streamline the process to save both myself and the reviewer some time. It seems a waste of everyones time to go through the effort of hiding cache and then providing all pertinent information to a reviewer only to be called a liar and receive another round of questions.

 

When I submit a cache, I always include a reviewer note that addresses all potential issues. If there are any serious issues, such as the maps being incorrect, I would include evidence to show exactly how they are wrong.

 

I tend to over-share with the reviewer rather than under-share. I got out of my way to avoid tricky hiding situations such as the cache being close to railroad tracks, etc. If I really did want to hide one in such a location, I would provide the reviewer photographic evidence of the environment at the cache location.

 

You could have done those things; instead, you chose to accuse reviewers of having "preferred hiders." That's a pretty serious allegation, so your claim that your were just trying to streamline your interactions doesn't pass the smell test. As for your claim that you were called a liar -- I have never ever had any reviewer question my honesty. Maybe that's because I don't try slipping shady stuff by them. If there is a potential problem, I am upfront and have the attitude that I will work with the reviewer, not against him.

 

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that the reviewer in question has some reason to doubt the veracity of your claims, likely from some previous interaction.

Link to comment

We try and choose our words carefully to make sure that they can't be interpreted improperly. Nowhere did your reviewer call you a liar or question your integrity.

 

"I do not believe you hid the cache where you said". Perhaps you choose your words carefully, this reviewer does not, In my opinion.

 

 

That's great advice, and squares with what the reviewer wrote in a reviewer note on the cache listing:

 

[/Quote]

 

I'm sorry I don't recall the fact that the map imagery here has changed recently. Unfortunately I also do not recall publishing your previous caches here or caches belonging to others. When I am done reviewing a cache page I dismiss the information. I don't recall the fact that the maps are incorrect. I see the most recent cache of yours that I published was almost exactly a year ago. Had you read the guidelines, in particular [Guideline link], you would have noted "If you believe that special circumstances may affect whether or not your cache listing is published, post a Reviewer Note on the cache listing." This is something you did a year ago, but since you didn't do it this time it's suddenly apparently my fault for not remembering. I look at hundreds of cache pages each month. It's impossible for me to remember unique qualities about a particular area from year to year.

 

This demonstrates how I am being treated as this is the response I got after I attempted to clarify and each point the reviewer raises is one that I pointed out in trying to convince them there are no houses here. I did not mention it initially since my google map preview did not show houses in the area

 

 

 

View Postarchiedais, on 21 March 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

 

I do not understand why I am told by the reviewer that "I do not believe you hid the cache where you said" even though they are FULLY aware no houses exist in this area.

 

Are you sure they were aware? Remember that reviewers are generally reviewing a large number of cache listings over a wide area, so the specific details of one residential area may be quickly forgotten. When you describe your hide in a reviewer note (you are doing that for EVERY cache, right?), give the reviewer every piece of information they need to make an informed decision about your cache. If Google Maps is wrong, describe how. If you don't think you need explicit permission, explain why. Don't assume that they remember all the details from past reviews in that area. The onus is on you to prove to the reviewer that your cache should be published, so give them all the evidence you have.

 

Yes I am sure. I clarified when they raised the question. I pointed out the houses are gone, reminded them that this came up before and reminded them it has come up on other caches. I was responded to with the rather rude response quoted above

 

Your event was originally submitted with the wrong date

 

Another unpublished cache was too close to the final of a multi.

 

I see one more that was on some private club land that the reviewer asked you about, but most of your other caches seemed to be published right away.

 

Another 2 times the reviewer questioned the accuracy of the coords based on the map and you then fixed them before publication.

 

The event was stated as being an hour long. The reviewer did not like that and wanted me to state it as finishing at 1 as opposed to starting at noon and going for one hour. Big difference. Not a multi, rather a hidden mystery cache. This was a good catch and a good job of reviewing. The private club was mentioned earlier. I am the land manager at that club and authorized to grant permission but was denied without getting someone else involved. A nearby cache, "no more trains" was published by this reviewer on our land with no permission at all. an example of preferred staus where review scrutiny is not the same for all COs. the 2 other mentioned times cords were off they were off very slightly, within the accuracy of GPS. I changed them, but they aren't really ant closer than they were before.

 

Clearly, you are overreacting to an innocent question about the coordinate location relative to what the reviewer saw on the map. Twice this past week alone, I've caught mistakes made by cache owners when entering their coordinates. They thanked me profusely for catching their innocent mistakes. Here's one example of a better reaction to a reviewer who questions your coordinates:

Had this reviewer responded as politely as you did, there never would have been an issue.

[/i see that this reviewer published no fewer than ten of your caches on a same-day or next-day basis, with no questions or comments on the cache page whatsoever prior to the "published" log. (Remember, I can see the archived logs.) Did the questioning "over and over" take place via email or text message, etc., and very rapidly? That seems inefficient.

 

Help us understand the factual basis for your statement. quote]

 

Perhaps there were some where I wasn't questioned. It is clear that I have been hassled more than is reasonable. I cannot see those reviewer notes so it is not fair or possible for me to argue the accuracy of what you say.

 

There are multiple ways of using google maps and the satellite view. Interestingly, one shows the houses, one does not. It appears that some "catch up" has to happen within the google images before all views of the area show it house free.

 

And yet I am accused of being negligent in not posting a note before I submitted. It is my obligation to let them know when there is an unusual circumstance, but how can I if I am able to see the maps with no houses present? I am supposed to know that the reviewer does not know how to work google maps?

 

The funny thing is, the reviewer here even allowed for the possibility of the maps being wrong -- all that the CO needed to do was say "yes, the maps are wrong." Quoting from the reviewer's note in relevant part:

 

He allowed for that because he knows they are. I did tell him that MANY times,now and in the past

 

Quote

 

If you believe your coordinates are in error then please edit your cache listing to fix the problem. If you believe they are correct, then please let me know. I'd also appreciate it in this case if you'd let me know a little more about the hide - where it is exactly, if this is public land or private, any permission you've obtained, etc. If the Google Map is also out of date then please let me know.

 

This to me is a reasonable note.

 

yes, had I not already done so repeatedly, then been responded to by being told he did not believe me.

 

I feel attacked for trying to understand how one person can hide a cache on a property I manage, while I am not allowed to do so without getting another persons consent. I feel attacked for being told I was not believed(what I call being called a liar) when explaining there are no house where there are none. I feel attacked when I simply wish to know how some COs can hide caches under little scrutiny while others are put through , in my opinion, the "wringer". I feel attacked that all of you reviewers here are only interested in digging through hidden conversations to further scrutinize what I have done and attempt to justify an unequal application of the guidelines set forth for geocaching.

 

I have never said I do not make mistakes. I do make them, frequently. I have stated from the beginning this is not intended as an attack on a reviewer. I feel attacked by yall for simply asking a question about an issue that anyone with any sense of fairness can clearly see is present. We are all human and I don't expect reviewers to be mistake free, but for petes sake admit them, address the issues and move on.

 

Thanks for the discussion

Link to comment

We try and choose our words carefully to make sure that they can't be interpreted improperly. Nowhere did your reviewer call you a liar or question your integrity.

 

"I do not believe you hid the cache where you said". Perhaps you choose your words carefully, this reviewer does not, In my opinion.

 

 

Here is what your reviewer said:

While reviewing your cache listing, I had some questions regarding the coordinates. The location of the cache, as displayed by Google Maps, doesn't match where you've indicated the cache is or is in a place that I don't believe you actually hid the cache.

 

Please open up your cache page (there's a link at the bottom of this email), and click on the link to view the cache in Google Maps. Make sure you look at the map in the Satellite view as well. Make sure that the cache shows up on the map where you think it should.

 

These coordinates appear to be about 20' from a house.

 

It's obvious to me that the intent of the note was that google maps didn't match your description. Your reviewer asked that you confirm what you are seeing is what they are seeing. If you read everything in context, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that you have.

Link to comment

Considering the tone you've been using in this discussion, I don't blame the reviewer for being a bit short in some of their correspondence (though they've still been extremely patient and respectful from what we've seen here). I think if you drop your idea of privileged/non-privileged hiders, take a more respectful tone with your reviewer, and understand that your reviewer wants to work with you (not against you) to get your cache published, you'll find things go much more smoothly.

 

As for why a cache got published on land you manage, there are countless possible reasons. Maybe the property maps they were using didn't indicate that location as being on your property. Maybe the hider falsely claimed that they had permission. Maybe the reviewer made an honest mistake. There are many other possible reasons, none of which involve any bias, privilege, or preference.

Link to comment

As for why a cache got published on land you manage, there are countless possible reasons.

The property in question is a dog club. Many reviewers are dogs. Quod erat demonstrandum, res ipsa loquitur and all that.

 

Side note: I've been wondering for the past day why the North Dakota Retriever Club is located in Minnesota. Are the dogs expected to retrieve the Club and drag it across the border? :laughing:

Link to comment
I think that while it is understandable while most reviewers use templates that's part of the problem and in particular when someone is not aware that the text which is sent is a template or built from templates and expects the formulation to have been chosen exactly for the concrete case. Template texts are efficient but they never can choose the optimal formulation for every specific case.

All of my template-based notes start with a disclaimer to the effect that they have been built from templates and so may not be optimal for the current case. :)

 

"I do not believe you hid the cache where you said". Perhaps you choose your words carefully, this reviewer does not, In my opinion.

Here is what your reviewer said:

While reviewing your cache listing, I had some questions regarding the coordinates. The location of the cache, as displayed by Google Maps, doesn't match where you've indicated the cache is or is in a place that I don't believe you actually hid the cache.

OK, I can just about see how someone who really, really wanted to accuse the reviewer of "not believing them" could turn the phrase "a place that I don't believe you actually hid the cache" into an accusation. But if the cache owner is a native speaker of English, I find that quite a stretch. If I am at a party and asked if I know Mr. X, and I say "I don't believe I've had the pleasure [of being introduced to Mr. X]", that does not actually make a statement about my "beliefs". It's a form of politeness, a way of softening (in this case) "a place where I'm pretty sure the cache isn't". I'm guessing this actually wasn't a template message, but if it was, I'm not sure I would recommend that the reviewer change it, because it doesn't seem to me that someone acting in good faith would genuinely consider that they were being accused of lying. (About the only reason I might suggest changing it would be if a non-native speaker had failed to spot the subtlety. But being a reviewer is meant to be, like geocaching, a "light, fun" activity, and if we have to consult lawyers before we ask the cache owner to clarify something, just in case they might misinterpret one of our words, then let's move to paid review, $19.95 per cache, please have your credit card ready.)

Link to comment
I think that while it is understandable while most reviewers use templates that's part of the problem and in particular when someone is not aware that the text which is sent is a template or built from templates and expects the formulation to have been chosen exactly for the concrete case. Template texts are efficient but they never can choose the optimal formulation for every specific case.

All of my template-based notes start with a disclaimer to the effect that they have been built from templates and so may not be optimal for the current case. :)

 

Good idea.

 

OK, I can just about see how someone who really, really wanted to accuse the reviewer of "not believing them" could turn the phrase "a place that I don't believe you actually hid the cache" into an accusation. But if the cache owner is a native speaker of English, I find that quite a stretch.

 

Well while I'm not a native speaker of English I do not think that the issue involved here is one of the subtleties of language. While it is likely that the reviewer did not meant the statement as an accusation, the message comes across for me is an accusation. That's not an issues where lawyers and wages for reviewers come into the play.

 

Even if I did not live in an area where cheating with coordinates happens not too rarely I would have not have appreciated a statement of the type "a place that I don't believe you ....".

 

If I am at a party and asked if I know Mr. X, and I say "I don't believe I've had the pleasure [of being introduced to Mr. X]", that does not actually make a statement about my "beliefs". It's a form of politeness, a way of softening (in this case) "a place where I'm pretty sure the cache isn't".

 

It's interesting that you apparently regard the statement that comes across as harsher to me as softening (not in your party example, only in the cache example).

I think that a question about the coordinates would have been far more neutral.

Link to comment

A nearby cache, "no more trains" was published by this reviewer on our land with no permission at all. an example of preferred staus where review scrutiny is not the same for all COs.

That other cache that you mentioned was that CO's very first hide, after being a member for only 2 months. Not sure how that CO could've been a "preferred cache hider" when they hadn't yet hidden any caches.

Link to comment

 

Well while I'm not a native speaker of English I do not think that the issue involved here is one of the subtleties of language. While it is likely that the reviewer did not meant the statement as an accusation, the message comes across for me is an accusation. That's not an issues where lawyers and wages for reviewers come into the play.

 

Even if I did not live in an area where cheating with coordinates happens not too rarely I would have not have appreciated a statement of the type "a place that I don't believe you ....".

 

If I am at a party and asked if I know Mr. X, and I say "I don't believe I've had the pleasure [of being introduced to Mr. X]", that does not actually make a statement about my "beliefs". It's a form of politeness, a way of softening (in this case) "a place where I'm pretty sure the cache isn't".

 

It's interesting that you apparently regard the statement that comes across as harsher to me as softening (not in your party example, only in the cache example).

I think that a question about the coordinates would have been far more neutral.

 

I am a native English speaker and use of "believe" in this context is perfectly normal and polite, and does not imply any perceived dishonesty. Believe is being used as in case 2 here. I don't believe anyone would take exception if I used that word in that context in any normal conversation (see what I did there?).

Link to comment

I'm feeling a lot of love in the room right now. You feel it too? I get the impression that just about everyone that has responded to the OP feels "preferred" by their Local Reviewer, while the poor OP is feeling a bit "excluded". So the real question might be, how can we get the OP to feel Un-excluded and more "preferred" like the rest of us?

Link to comment

We try and choose our words carefully to make sure that they can't be interpreted improperly. Nowhere did your reviewer call you a liar or question your integrity.

 

"I do not believe you hid the cache where you said". Perhaps you choose your words carefully, this reviewer does not, In my opinion.

Here is what your reviewer said:

While reviewing your cache listing, I had some questions regarding the coordinates. The location of the cache, as displayed by Google Maps, doesn't match where you've indicated the cache is or is in a place that I don't believe you actually hid the cache.

 

 

These coordinates appear to be about 20' from a house.

It's obvious to me that the intent of the note was that google maps didn't match your description. Your reviewer asked that you confirm what you are seeing is what they are seeing. If you read everything in context, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that you have.

If you had read everything in context, and it were directed at you, perhaps you would feel differently. This note came after I had already politely explained that there were no houses in that area. I explained that my map did not show any houses, hence no reviewer comment regarding it. I also refreshed the reviewers memory, politely, that they had published several caches in similar areas. You have not read many of the communications I had with the reviewer as they were left out of the reviewer note. I then see my response left out of the reviewer note and the reviewer follows with I don't believe you... I see no other way to take this. When I read this OUT OF CONTEXT, as you do, I see your point and agree that it did not appear to be insulting. However, that was not the context of this conversation as parts were omitted from the reviewers note. That fact alone raises suspicion for me and fails the aforementioned smell test, in my opinion.

 

Considering the tone you've been using in this discussion, I don't blame the reviewer for being a bit short in some of their correspondence (though they've still been extremely patient and respectful from what we've seen here). I think if you drop your idea of privileged/non-privileged hiders, take a more respectful tone with your reviewer, and understand that your reviewer wants to work with you (not against you) to get your cache published, you'll find things go much more smoothly.

While certainly my tone is a bit terse, I feel it is justified regarding this thread. I feel I have been attacked and scrutinized here for asking a question that apparently many are afraid to. At least a few others have agreed, and I am confident many more would agree if not for seeing the attacks I have endured. I NEVER took this to a personal level with any reviewer or specifics regarding the placement of any geocache. I only went that route when defending myself from personal attacks which is by the way a violation of the TOS.It was the reviewers who jumped on, pouring over private, non visable comments on specific hides and specific conversations with reviewers. This comes across as an attack on me and an attempt to discredit me and my feelings that some geocachers are given preferential treatment. This thread has convinced me that this is absolutely true and the attacks on me lead me to believe many reviewers realize it and are defending it.

 

As far as tone with the reviewer, that is a bit unfair of you since, as stated above, the conversations I had with them were not posted to the reviewer notes in their entirety. This to me gives the impression that somebody is engaging in CYA which leads me further to believe that preferential treatment happens. Furthermore, I have apologized to the reviewer for any ill tone and thanked the reviewers many times for their efforts.

understand that your reviewer wants to work with you (not against you) to get your cache published, you'll find things go much more smoothly.

I have not seen anything that leads me to believe the reviewer of my current pending cache, or any on this thread, have any interest in working with me.

 

Maybe that's because I don't try slipping shady stuff by them. If there is a potential problem, I am upfront and have the attitude that I will work with the reviewer, not against him.

 

Are you insinuating I have tried to do something shady? If so, what have I tried to slip by?

 

I tend to over-share with the reviewer rather than under-share. I got out of my way to avoid tricky hiding situations such as the cache being close to railroad tracks, etc. If I really did want to hide one in such a location, I would provide the reviewer photographic evidence of the environment at the cache location.

 

You could have done those things; instead, you chose to accuse reviewers of having "preferred hiders." That's a pretty serious allegation, so your claim that your were just trying to streamline your interactions doesn't pass the smell test.

 

I accused the reviewers of nothing until the reviewers in this thread started accusing me, at which point I chose to defend my actions. I simply asked a question for which I have been attacked. A question to which I have heard very little in the way of answers or explanations. I have said that I think it is something that happens, and I have provided an example to which there has been little defense. The claim that preferential treatment does not occur is the claim that doesn't pass the smell test with me. If reviewers were at all concerned with the stench of impropriety or the appearance of favoritism it is my opinion they would address the problem and propose a solution. Instead they just attack me.

Side note: I've been wondering for the past day why the North Dakota Retriever Club is located in Minnesota. Are the dogs expected to retrieve the Club and drag it across the border? :laughing:

 

That's a great question, one I had planned on answering in an upcoming cache page. The cache will probably not be allowed now, as the club is reading this and is upset that what they thought was a good group of people is acting this way toward me. Not to mention my permission is not adequate! I am apparently in better standing with them than with this group.

 

As for why a cache got published on land you manage, there are countless possible reasons. Maybe the property maps they were using didn't indicate that location as being on your property. Maybe the hider falsely claimed that they had permission. Maybe the reviewer made an honest mistake. There are many other possible reasons, none of which involve any bias, privilege, or preference.

 

Yay, at least one person will address this. Maps? There would still need to be permission granted and this reviewer has told me that contact info for these hides must be in the reviewer notes. I gather that this did not happen or I assume one of the many reviewers here would have been very eager to post that. If it is the case, feel free to post that information and demonstrate it was not a case inequitable reviewing.

 

blaming the hider for falsely claiming permission? Seems to be a popular approach, but again quite easily demonstrable by any reviewer via the reviewer notes. Post up if that's the case and prove this wasn't bias.

 

An honest mistake? Certainly possible but I haven't seen much owning of mistakes around here. Was the mistake not asking for permission documentation? that's kind of the point of this whole thing.

 

What other possible reason could there be? Wait, I have one. Perhaps there is some bias as to the level of scrutiny specific hiders face. This might very well be an honest mistake but I think it is absurd that not one reviewer can even admit it gives the impression of unfairness at best, and shows evidence of it at worst.

Link to comment
That other cache that you mentioned was that CO's very first hide, after being a member for only 2 months. Not sure how that CO could've been a "preferred cache hider" when they hadn't yet hidden any caches.

 

In this case my definition of preferred doesn't mean more experienced, it means they are not subject to the same scrutiny and requirements while placing caches. It would seem that if this reviewer was interested in "working with"( as suggested above) geocachers this would have been a great time to explain the rules and encourage the hider to obtain permission. I guess that didn't happen as the reviewers here surely would have quoted those hidden notes. I was required to do far more than that when hiding on this property, while this new cacher was required to do nothing other than drop a container and hit enable. How is that not preferential treatment?

Link to comment
That other cache that you mentioned was that CO's very first hide, after being a member for only 2 months. Not sure how that CO could've been a "preferred cache hider" when they hadn't yet hidden any caches.

 

In this case my definition of preferred doesn't mean more experienced, it means they are not subject to the same scrutiny and requirements while placing caches. It would seem that if this reviewer was interested in "working with"( as suggested above) geocachers this would have been a great time to explain the rules and encourage the hider to obtain permission. I guess that didn't happen as the reviewers here surely would have quoted those hidden notes. I was required to do far more than that when hiding on this property, while this new cacher was required to do nothing other than drop a container and hit enable. How is that not preferential treatment?

I used the interactive map at this website.

It appears that the area where "no more trains" is hidden belongs to Clay County and not to the club that owns the adjoining, much larger parcel to the west. Looks like there's a strip of land along 110th that was a former railroad and has been converted to a walking trail or something like that? That strip is shown to be a separate parcel from the parcel that the club owns.

 

I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything, just trying to show a likely explanation for the permission issue.

Link to comment

Have you tried asking your reviewer? We, including those here that are reviewers themselves, can only make our best guess based on the info we have available. The reviewer you're dealing with would certainly know for sure why they do or do not do things.

 

No I have not. This reviewer has been unresponsive to me in the past. I also really don't believe I would get an honest answer, especially judging by all the attacks here. Remember, I did not start this post asking anything specific regarding any reviewer, or any hide. It was the reviewers responding that went on the offensive. I only asked about the notion that cache COs are scrutinized differently, and how that happens. I was hoping for a general take on the issue and the general take I have felt is that it occurs, is accepted and no one better ask about it or they will be maligned.

 

I really had hoped the responses would be something like "unfortunately, situations sometimes occur where the appearance of favoritism exists. As reviewers we acknowledge that mistakes are sometimes made and we collectively strive to be clear and consistent with the review process. We would welcome any input as to how better to handle these situations so every geocacher feels they are treated fairly".

 

Then, of course, the suggestions could be ignored. The attacks and reviewer dog pile (playing off the earlier dog comments which I have never heard before) suggest to me that many reviewers are aware of the problem and do not wish to change or even acknowledge that a problem, or at least a perception of one, exists. These comments do, in my mind, condone the biased treatment of geocachers and the attacking of anyone who would question an issue central to the game we pay to play.

 

It is a shame that the collective take feels this way because I believe that most reviewers (most geocachers for that matter) are very decent and giving people who expend a lot of time and energy making this game they love possible. Until today I have been proud to be counted as a geocacher. Personally, if I was a reviewer, I would be offended that my fellow reviewers took the approach they did with me when I raised a simple and legitimate question about a widely perceived problem with the game. It would have been the perfect opportunity to demonstrate to all that reviewers are a reasonable group of people striving to do their best. Sadly, that was not the case.

 

If reviewers wish to continue to attack me here, so be it. You wont hurt my feelings. I feel I have defended myself and further attacks will simply demonstrate that I am correct in my assessment of this issue. If you disagree, that's fine with me.

 

Thanks to everyone in this thread who intended to help address an issue. Those few of you out there give me some hope this game will continue to grow and improve. To those who chose to attack, Thanks for your help in demonstrating the problem and thanks for your work reviewing geocaches. I realize it is very difficult and for the most part I feel you all do a very good job.

 

Happy trails and happy geocaching,

 

Clark Emery

AKA archiedais

Link to comment
I used the interactive map at this website.

It appears that the area where "no more trains" is hidden belongs to Clay County and not to the club that owns the adjoining, much larger parcel to the west. Looks like there's a strip of land along 110th that was a former railroad and has been converted to a walking trail or something like that? That strip is shown to be a separate parcel from the parcel that the club owns.

 

I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything, just trying to show a likely explanation for the permission issue.

 

The club acquired that land from the railroad in early 2011. The geocache there was approved in May 2011. If the railroad owned it when the cache was placed, it did not have permission as the railroad wont give permission to anyone for anything. We acquired the land in about April, meaning we probably owned the land when the cache was placed, and I did not give permission for it. Regardless of who owned it, I have not seen a report of who was documented on the reviewer notes as the contact. I am told this is SOP for everyone.

 

Since purchasing the land in 2011, it has been split up three ways. The club retained some, the County claimed some and a private farmer was deeded some. Further contributing to this issue is the fact that the legal description does not match the county plat drawings and the land has never been surveyed. The three of us,(County, Farmer and club) have agreed on arbitrary boundries to settle the confusion without expensive surveying and legal work. This is after all an abandoned railroad bed and not good for much. We use it for parking, the farmer uses it as a rifle range and the county, they just mow it. The trail is actually the left over gravel from the railroad, not an improved trail of any kind. The geocache there is currently on the portion of land the farmer has agreed to maintain, so I no longer have authority over this area.

 

So you see, there is some confusion here and that sort of drives home my point. Was this reviewed with the same standard as my hides here have been? No, I don't believe so. I have not been given any where near this much leeway from this same reviewer on my hides. This also debunks your theory that this could explain, or excuse, the differential review procedures. Nice try though!

 

As for the geocache there now, I don't have any authority but I feel there is no need to archive it. The area is commonly used by the club and the farmer has never had an issue with people there. It is not in a field, just on an old rr bed. It has not had permission in the last five years, so its really no different now. I would hope it is left active.

Link to comment

Update: The OP/CO changed the name of their cache to "Do you see a house?" which may be part of the reason why the reviewer chose to end the review process and refer the cache owner to Geocaching HQ.

 

So let's answer the OP's question. See the cache container icon in the photo below? Do you see a house? Do you see why a reviewer might question this location?

 

60536486-4e3e-4ee8-9b92-084ca50144dd.jpg

 

Once again, a simple reviewer note saying that the maps have changed likely would have cleared this up. The FTF would already have been logged.

Link to comment

Update: The OP/CO changed the name of their cache to "Do you see a house?" which may be part of the reason why the reviewer chose to end the review process and refer the cache owner to Geocaching HQ.

 

So let's answer the OP's question. See the cache container icon in the photo below? Do you see a house? Do you see why a reviewer might question this location?

 

60536486-4e3e-4ee8-9b92-084ca50144dd.jpg

 

Once again, a simple reviewer note saying that the maps have changed likely would have cleared this up. The FTF would already have been logged.

 

Appears to me it's on private property, and as I very often take a look on maps before seeking a cache, I would not attempt this one unless it had the private residence attribute and stated on the cache page that it was okay to be in this homeowners back yard.

 

I agree with the reviewer. :anibad:

Link to comment

Update: The OP/CO changed the name of their cache to "Do you see a house?" which may be part of the reason why the reviewer chose to end the review process and refer the cache owner to Geocaching HQ.

 

So let's answer the OP's question. See the cache container icon in the photo below? Do you see a house? Do you see why a reviewer might question this location?

 

60536486-4e3e-4ee8-9b92-084ca50144dd.jpg

 

Once again, a simple reviewer note saying that the maps have changed likely would have cleared this up. The FTF would already have been logged.

 

I see no fence and no property boundaries. There is no way to know from the map that it is indeed not on privaye property. I would hope that any reviewer would question this location. On one hand if I lived there and saw someone rooting around at least I'd call the cops. At worst that person would get shot. The reviewer was probably thinking the same thing and wanting clarification.

 

With the OP's attitude and opinion of the reviewer being 100% correct, that can't be it at all. The reviewer is one of "them" and "they" are out to get you. These preferred cachers are either with "them" and it's out of professional courtesy, or these preferred cachers are members of the super elite secret double-double platinum membership (available for $30,000 a year) that allow everything. It does sound far fetched but since the OP won't ask the reviewer in question, I guess we'll never know.

Link to comment

Once again Keystone, you admit and defend this practice. You show your allegiance to a practice of unfairness. THE REVIEWER WAS TOLD THE MAPS HAD CHANGED! MULTIPLE TIMES! I never faulted the reviewer for questioning the placement on the old map. I faulted them for saying they did not believe I hid the cache in that spot when I reminded them yet again about the map changes. I faulted them for failure to publish when it was demonstrated that there were no guidelines broken by this placement. I fault them for not consistently following the guidelines for reviewing geocache placements. I fault them for being as rude as I was, but I take equal blame for that.

 

I didn't know it was against the guidelines to change a cache name. I don't see anything in the new name that would be grounds for archiving the cache. Many caches placed in this area reference the preexisting neighborhoods. How does this name, or changing a name violate the guidelines and justify archival? Please point me to a specific section that describes how the name would eliminate this cache from consideration.

 

It really is amusing how reviewers keep trying to find reasons why I am at fault. The ONLY thing I feel I am guilty of here is perhaps not being as polite as I could have been. Please point out anything I have said or done that violates the guidelines of cache placement or forum rules? It is consistently pointed out that I did not include an original reviewer note regarding the map change, the insinuation being that it is then somehow my fault the cache was denied. Again that is because on my maps the houses were not present AND I knew the reviewer was well aware the houses were gone. Once the reviewer raised the issue I reminded them about it and was then told I was not believed.

 

I have pointed out how personal attacks against me are a violation, no response to that. I have pointed out how parts of the conversation that were private were posted and/or left out of posts and reviewer notes. That is a violation of the forums I moderate and I would guess it is here too though I haven't specifically checked. If it is not a violation it is at least unethical and deceitful.

 

I am curious now how many of these straw man arguments will pop up. I am also curious how long until I get sanctioned or banned. I have not been made aware of any TOS I have violated and will happily apologize if I have broken any rules.

 

The tone and conduct of reviewers here really does send a message that this arrogant attitude is prevalent among reviewers and that players like me are viewed merely as geowaste by the reviewers and Groundspeak, who the reviewers represent. That is sad because I had never felt that to be true until today. I have heard others say it, but I have never felt it before. I cant believe you all defend the practice of following guidelines differently based on your perception of the cache owner. That is clearly not what the guidelines say.

 

Does ANYONE have any legitimate reasons that this cache should have been archived? I am proceeding with an appeal only because of the response I have received here. It is my full expectation that the appeal will be denied as it is clear that Groundspeak, and their representatives value their own egos more than they value fairness and the game they supposedly are working for.

Link to comment

Thought on the adequate permission issue OP is running up against.

 

OP may be in a position of authority in the club at the moment but clubs are generally very fluid things and those who are on the executive may not even be members in 2 years time. The reviewer wants to make sure that a cacher doesn't get the third degree for being on "private" land in 3 or 4 years time when there is a flush of new members.

 

Easily solved be getting the secetary to send them something on the letterhead or a copy of the meeting minutes in which the club approved the cache. All this is perfectly normal when a club deals with another organisation.

Link to comment

What's unfair about posting a screenshot of the map that the reviewer saw when he wrote his original note. You know, the note that he wrote BEFORE the dialogue about how a bunch of houses got torn down, and this wasn't yet reflected in Google maps?

 

I don't have time to itemize the OP's violations of the forum guidelines and the website terms of use, but for starters there's Section 2 of the forum guidelines, and Section 2.D of the website terms of use to chew on. And, once personal allegations are made, it's fair to present the "rest of the story." I'm Paul Harvey. And there is still more to the story, but I'm mainly quoting the reviewer's side, 'cause that's how I roll.

 

To the OP, best of luck with your appeal. In the meantime, Do you see a house?

Link to comment

Manville possum and TDM,

 

I am not sure what you cannot understand. There are no houses here. They were removed years ago and I told the reviewer this many times, including right after the initial response about it on this cache submission. Those conversations were left out of the reviewer notes. They happened via email at the reviewers request. Keystone is aware of this he just has no answer so he chooses to ignore that fact. Whos going to shoot you, A raccoon?

 

The people here must be the same ones who will drive off a cliff because TOMTOM says " turn left". But honey, there is no road. I don't believe you, the map clearly shows a rooooaaaaaa.... splat.

 

With the OP's attitude and opinion of the reviewer being 100% correct, that can't be it at all. The reviewer is one of "them" and "they" are out to get you. These preferred cachers are either with "them" and it's out of professional courtesy, or these preferred cachers are members of the super elite secret double-double platinum membership (available for $30,000 a year) that allow everything. It does sound far fetched but since the OP won't ask the reviewer in question, I guess we'll never know.

 

Does mocking me make you feel better? I have raised a point and provided support for that point. When nobody is able to rebut that support you resort to mocking me. How mature and classy.

Edited by archiedais
Link to comment

I am a native English speaker and use of "believe" in this context is perfectly normal and polite, and does not imply any perceived dishonesty. Believe is being used as in case 2 here. I don't believe anyone would take exception if I used that word in that context in any normal conversation (see what I did there?).

 

Actually, my discomfort does not come from the usage of believe in its own right (so I still think that it is not a language issue) - it comes from how the sentence is continued. I tend to interpret sentences as they are written and not as they probably are meant by the writer (which often are completely different things).

I also feel annoyed if someone provides the same information in a normal log and say a NM log as it feels to me implicitely like someone believes that I need everythings spelt out twice or even worse that I do not read normal logs (which is the case for many cachers but not for me).

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...