How does one become a "preferred" cache hider?

[+niraD]

My name is niraD, and I am a "preferred" cache hider. It has been more than 5 months since my last listing was published. I provided multiple reviewer notes explaining all the details I could think to explain, and that listing was published in much less time than the stated service goal of the volunteer reviewers.

[+noncentric]

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!

Well, however the land was split up, the map shows the county as the taxpayer for that strip of land that runs along 110th. Maybe the map showed something else back in 2011, but if looked the same as it does now then I wouldn't expect reviewers to search through public records to try and determine if there are any recorded easements or 'agreements'. Not sure how the reviewer would know that there's a farmer that maintains land that the county map shows as being owned by the county.

 

From what I've seen, there is less scrutiny of permission that's on public land, unless the public land is in an area that has an explicit geocaching policy. If your "nice try though" comment was meant to be sarcastic or patronizing, which is how it comes across, then that really wasn't necessary. It seems that when people project that type of tone in their communications, then they're more likely to receive the same tone in responses to them. Might be something to consider.

[+noncentric]

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.

I'm a bit confused. Was there an existing cache that was archived after publication, or are we talking about a cache that never got published in the first place? If it's the latter, then I suspect the reviewer referred the listing to HQ because communications between him/her and you have reached a point where it's better for another person to intervene.

Edited March 22, 2016 by noncentric

[+MartyBartfast]

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).

 

But when you quoted the text you cut this:

 

...a place that I don't believe you actually hid the cache.

 

to this:

 

a place that I don't believe you ....

 

The original sentence is perfectly reasonable, but you cut it to make it sound like an accusation. There is nothing wrong with the sentence as it was originally used, whatever you may say.

[cezanne]

The original sentence is perfectly reasonable, but you cut it to make it sound like an accusation. There is nothing wrong with the sentence as it was originally used, whatever you may say.

 

I just said that I do not like the formulation of the sentence and that's not an issue of different interpretations of believe. I prefer something like "I wonder whether your coordinates are correct as the map shows a house there".

You can also argue that there is nothing wrong with writing "the log book is full" both in a found it log and a NM log and still I do not like that to happen.

[+J Grouchy]

I'll just jump in to state that I've observed a number of instances where...allowances?...were made for certain folks. I wouldn't call it some super elite group, but certain individuals clearly got a pass due to their circumstances or standing. Whatever...I learned not to make a stink about it since I was obviously not going to be heard on the matter.

 

That being said, it's clear to me the OP is being quite argumentative and antagonistic in this forum and it's extremely difficult to be sympathetic to anyone like that. It sounds like the conversation has gotten far too heated for anyone to budge, so I honestly don't blame any reviewer for just deciding to step away and let the higher-ups handle it. Unless someone is willing to post the complete timeline of communications between CO and reviewer, we really shouldn't be judging. All we see is what is posted in here...and it's honestly not flattering.

[+GeoBain]

Those conversations were left out of the reviewer notes. They happened via email at the reviewers request.

 

I have no comment on the general situation since it seems murky due to the apparent lack of a record of all communications.

 

However, my takeaway of this thread is that all communication about a cache placement should be done via reviewer notes, especially if there have been previous problems. And if you do decide to communicate via email, it should be done exclusively via Groundspeak's email service so a record of all emails is kept. Then at least you have the option of having a third party review all communications, including any archived messages.

Edited March 22, 2016 by GeoBain

[+Lil Devil]

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.

The way it appears to me is that the cache was archived because you were abusive to the reviewer, and the volunteer reviewer doesn't get paid enough to deal with abuse. He simply washed his hands of you. I suspect when you take it to the paid staff at appeals, they will publish your cache.

 

Hopefully you can apologize and work things out with your reviewer so he will review your future submissions. If all your caches end up having to go through the paid staff, I think your reviews will take significantly longer.

[+The A-Team]

I think we need to start over.

 

Q: "How does one become a "preferred" cache hider?"

A: One doesn't, because there's no such thing. Some situations may appear to an outsider to contain an element of bias, but actual occurrences of bias are so rare as to be nearly non-existent.

 

You can believe what you want to believe. If you sincerely believe that there is a massive conspiracy of bias among the reviewers against you, it doesn't seem like there's any way we can convince you otherwise. Sure, I bet there are extremely rare cases where someone gets (mild) preferential treatment, but it's orders of magnitude less than that implied by your accusations of a wide-spread conspiracy and usually so minor as to have no visible impact.

 

My name is The A-Team and I'm not a "preferred" cache hider, and I'm perfectly happy with this.

[+archiedais]

Sure, lets start over that is a good idea.

 

First, thanks for being one a very few who have attempted to answer my original question. Your answer makes sense because you actually admit there could be some appearance of preferential treatment, but explain that you feel it is very rare and not consequential.

 

Perhaps I misspoke somewhere along the line, but where did I say anything implying

accusations of a wide-spread conspiracy

 

Lets review, and figure out how these examples could be taken as a claim of wide spread conspiracy or how they could be ignored by saying the situation NEVER occurs. I don't feel either case is accurate.

 

I asked about an issue that I and others perceive as real.

 

I stated I felt ONE reviewer put me under greater scrutiny than he put others under. I gave ONE example of what I feel was preferential treatment in a very similar situation to substantiate my claim, but only after I was called out. It was not my intent when starting this thread to give specific examples, and I did not think I would have to defend myself to that degree.

 

We also had, in this thread, one reviewer admit they have given preferential treatment to a cache hider, and said they regretted it and have learned from that mistake. Thanks for your honesty, it is refreshing.

 

I think it has been established that it happens. I think it would be inevitable that it happens, after all we are all human and we all make mistakes. The part that bothers me is how fervently the reviewers in this thread fight the notion that It could possibly happen. Ever. (except the one who admitted to doing it, and I respect that reviewer immensely).

 

I think it has also been shown that it may not be a widespread issue, as you pointed out in your last response. I

 

This more closely resembles how I thought the thread would initially go. As the OP I ask that any further postings be kept constructive and on general terms. I apologize to all for my role in the degradation of the conversation prior to this point.

[+MN.Fruitcake]

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.

 

I'm pretty sure I can provide you the reason. I'll certainly provide you my personal opinion. You seem intent on dragging the review of your cache through the public process, but providing a very one sided view of the facts. My fellow reviewers have responded with information from the review process, but you say that I'm only providing selective information. SO, let's get it all out since you seem pretty intent on doing so.

 

You'll notice I don't have any posts in this public forum. I'm not in the habit of debating what happens in the review process in the public forum. As I indicated on the cache page (and we'll get there in a minute), if you aren't happy with what I do then take it up with Groundspeak. I'll also tell you right up front that I didn't come here to debate the issue with you and I will not do so. I came here to clear my name as you drug it through the mud repeatedly. You won't see another response from me on this.

 

We'll work up from the bottom of the cache page so it stays in basic chronological order. First:

 

 

Now, my note says that I don't believe you actually hid the cache there. That's accurate - I didn't believe that you hid the cache 20' from someone's house. I believed that the coordinate you provided me were probably incorrect - you either copied them wrong from your GPS, or transposed them while entering them in the website, etc. It's a common mistake. I've personally made the mistake and entered incorrect coordinates. It happens. We're all human.

 

Looking at the map it didn't seem right that the cache would be hidden there. I later realized (when you pointed it out) that the house on the map didn't exist (Keystone has already provided an image of the same thing that I saw). Yes, you did point out that the houses in this area are no longer there, but you did so a year ago.

 

Onward now:

 

 

Pretty benign actually.

 

You indicated that you were moving the hide. Not necessary - all that I needed was the explanation that the houses were gone. Had you just given me the first paragraph and re-enabled the listing then all would have been good and it would have been published shortly afterward.

 

At the same time though you sent me an email. As a pretty regular practice I include emails about a particular cache listing back on the cache page. That's really the only way I can keep track of them over time. It also provides a history if another reviewer needs to step in to finish the review process, if a cache goes to appeals, etc. Here's the reviewer note copy of that email:

 

 

Now, I believe you said here (your post) that I have only included selective emails and portions thereof. So I'll provide the entire gmail snippet of the same message as well, so we can compare. The only other email I was able to find from you was the week before this, when you asked me to unarchive a listing for you. I politely told you that "You'll need to submit a new listing for this."

 

 

As you'll see, I did leave out some of the email. In particular, I left out the link to the cache page that you provided at the top of the email and your name on the bottom. The rest of the email is there.

 

Onward now to my response to what I considered to be a hostile and rude email. Normally I would have halted the review process at this point and forwarded the cache to Groundspeak to review. In hindsight I wish I would have.

 

 

At this point in the dialogue I'm now done conversing with you about what you think about me as a reviewer, past geocaches, etc. I've clearly told you that further communication would need to be about publishing the cache at hand. I've also given you an avenue if you continue to not be happy with me as a reviewer or the review process. Even though this is written via text, you'll pretty clearly pick up on my tone I think.

 

I asked one simple question: Is the cache still at the coordinates or not? You've given me some pretty significant reason to think that it's not, so I wanted to verify that it actually was there before I published the listing.

 

Your response still did not answer the question. The closest you came was by telling me that it was in place. This still did not address the fact that you told me you were moving it but the coordinates didn't change.

 

Then once I got to the beginning of the third paragraph I was done reading. Again, I won't tolerate it. I gave you clear warning and you failed to heed it.

 

Your cache was then archived.

 

 

I can go on and on about what I think here, but I believe what I've laid out from your own words is pretty telling, so I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

 

Oh, to answer your original question:

 

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

 

There is no carte blanche with me. Unless you've demonstrated a reason that you're not trustworthy (I have found people that will lie, and those cachers now get vetted a little more before being published), you'll be treated the same as anyone else.

 

One thing that I work hard at is to treat each cache on its own. We can have a large, heated discussion over one listing, you may even send it to appeals* and win or loose, but your next cache will be reviewed with as little bias as I'm humanly able to give. The only extra attention anyone will get from me is when they drag it out in a public place or when they lie to me.

 

(*: sending a cache to appeals has no influence on me whatsoever. I learn from every cache that is sent there. If the cacher has their cache published then I see the err of my process. If the cacher is required to make changes or told their cache is not publishable then I know I'm doing my job right. Both outcomes are a win for me, not in what happened to the cache, but in what I learned in the process. I encourage people to send disputed caches there so that we may both learn.)

Edited March 22, 2016 by MN.Fruitcake

[+archiedais]

MNFruitcake,

 

You seem intent on dragging the review of your cache through the public process

 

If you read the thread you will see I never did any such thing. It was your fellow reviewers that brought this specific cache into the conversation. You should thank them for getting you involved in this, not blame me.

 

I did not read your entire post. I did notice you still left out some correspondence that is applicable. Like the email where I explained that on the satellite view I did not see any houses. I still do not. The picture your fellow reviewers posted is a different view than the one I looked at and is not the most current map, which you stated you were using. Your fellow reviewer Sapience trek was able to figure out there are two views, one with the houses and the newer one without. Since you stated you were using the newest view this meant you did not see any houses and in my view were just trying to be a pain, as you have in the past.

 

I find it interesting that you state that I am the one that wants this to happen in public yet you ignore my private emails to you while posting this here. Your post is off topic, a violation of TOS but reviewers here aren't held to that standard, are they. The thread was about how one attains a preferred status. It had nothing to do with you. I asked specifically if posters could stay on topic. It is your wish, and the wish of your fellow reviewers, to air the details of this hide in public so do not accuse me of doing that.

 

The facts remain the same. I did not post a reviewer note because there are no houses on the satellite view I used, one available on the cache page. I reminded you that there are map changes in the area and I told you the cache was still in place. I even apologized for being unclear in my reviewer note where I said I would move the hide. I do not respond well to threats. I do not appreciate being called a liar. I have apologized to you in private and in public and you have yet to acknowledge that or any wrongdoing on your part. You have failed to publish a cache simply because you do not like the way I talked to you and that in my assessment is biased. You have clearly given "no more trains" far less scrutiny than you have given my caches on club property. That is the very definition of reviewing with a bias.

 

You can ignore the other pertinent emails if you want. You can call me names and threaten me. You can put your edited reviewer notes on a public forum. You can do anything you want and it really doesn't bother me in the least. I don't care if you ever publish a geocache of mine again, that will only hurt the other players. But you don't care about the players, do you?

 

I had hoped that this thread would turn back to a positive light, but once again a reviewer can do nothing but attack and turn this into fight over a geocache that isn't even a part of the game. Too bad you couldn't come here and provide some experienced input regarding the topic the thread was about. Too bad you couldn't come here and provide some constructive advice for others to learn from. Why would you even become a reviewer when you clearly are not interested in helping those that play the game?

 

I was warned that the representatives of Groundspeak have no interest in fairness or the players. I just did not believe it until yesterday. I am done defending myself against the lies, misrepresentation and outright attacks here. This was NEVER about a specific hide. This was just about learning about the unwritten rules regarding the review process. The reviewers here started digging into hidden reviewer notes on my caches and taking this to a personal level. We have had one reviewer admit he has given carte blanche to a CO and we have another who we have seen evidence that he has. But I guess it is easier to attack me than to look in the mirror.

 

So long

[Keystone]

Thank you, MN.Fruitcacke, for providing the complete history on the review of this cache, and for confirming that there were no other emails exchanged back and forth with this cache owner.

 

I'm still a little confused, as the cache owner alleges that this same back and forth process has occurred with every cache you have ever reviewed for him. I am not seeing any evidence of that. I asked the cache owner to help us understand the basis for his statement, but he has refused to do so. I will instead choose to believe your summary of the email history between the two of you.

 

As Paul Harvey put it, "now you know the REST of the story."

[+UMainah]

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?

 

 

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.

 

Using the "Google Maps" link on the cache page this is what shows up for me:

 

Using the "Bing Maps" link on the cache page this shows up for me:

[Keystone]

Correct, UMainah. Sapience Trek already pointed out the discrepancy in an earlier post to this thread. The reviewers' toolset includes a very customized, powerful mapping tool that apparently relies on a different version of Google Maps. In that view, we can see all the waypoints -- parking, cache location, intermediate waypoints of multi-caches, etc.

[knowschad]

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?

 

>> Many reviewers are dogs.

 

Do you realize how few people actually know what you're talking about anymore with that "reviewer are dogs" thing? I'm sure you're just trying to lighten things up, but if you look at it from the standpoint of a pissed off OP that is looking for some real answer to something that is bothering him, a joke that he doesn't even get about reviewers being dogs is not very helpful. You may want to reconsider using that silly little insider joke next time. Just a thought...

[+JL_HSTRE]

The OP should keep in mind that these forums are no stranger to complaints about perceived mistreatment by Reviewers for which there is very nearly always "more to the story" revealed by posted logs. Thus claiming a Reviewer is out to get you is automatically met with suspicion. Boy who cried wolf and all that.

 

Reviewers probably treat COs similar to how cops treat people: a good attitude goes in your favor whereas giving a hard time gets you a hard time. Rather than getting "preferred status" it's probably more like "not getting in the dog house."

 

If you feel your Reviewer is not giving you a fair deal and "incriminating evidence" is in email communication I would recommend for future hides that you keep conversation in the Reviewer Notes on the cache page. Then there is no hidden information.

 

Also, never assume any Reviewer will remember any previous cache they published, no matter how recent or how close. They see lots of listings and few of them have photographic memory.

[+Sapience Trek]

Do you realize how few people actually know what you're talking about anymore with that "reviewer are dogs" thing?

 

The real Sapience Trek:

 

(he sometimes can't see houses because of the hair in his eyes)

Edited March 23, 2016 by Sapience Trek

[+noncentric]

Using the "Google Maps" link on the cache page this is what shows up for me:

Interestingly, if you drop the little 'person icon' onto Google Maps, then the Street View shows there are houses all along the west side of Elm/River St.

 

I think another issue is that the Geocaching maps (ie, MapQuest Aerial, Esri WorldImagery) show the houses. The other maps that are not satellite views show outlines of houses. Since many cachers look at the cache locations using these maps, then I think many will have the same concerns about private property and whether or not they want to attempt the cache. I would hope that the cache description includes some info about how there used to be houses there, but the houses are now gone. This would allow cachers that are using the maps on Geocaching.com to know what to expect.

[+UMainah]

I would hope that the cache description includes some info about how there used to be houses there, but the houses are now gone.

Agreed. I wonder if these were Acquisition & Demo properties due to flood issues.

[Keystone]

I would hope that the cache description includes some info about how there used to be houses there, but the houses are now gone.

Agreed. I wonder if these were Acquisition & Demo properties due to flood issues.

That was my guess as well. There is a river a bit to the west, and I recall news of flooding on this river. (Flood disaster risk management is a part of my paying day job.)

 

Unfortunately the cache description did not mention anything about the removed houses. If it had, then the reviewer would likely never had asked his question, and the cache would have racked up a half dozen finds by now.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Keystone

[knowschad]

"...a place that I don't believe you actually hid the cache."

 

It appears to me that almost all of the angst in this thread was caused by that one phrase. Depending on your side of the fence, it could be taken as a helpful suggestion to recheck coordinates, or it could be taken as a challenge to one's integrity. It doesn't seem to me to have been the latter, but I think that is the way the OP took it.

 

I know the reviewer in question to some degree, and yeah, I think that I might say that he is the toughest reviewer that I have worked with in the sense of having to prove my innocence rather than the reviewer having to prove my guilt (in the very few caches of mine that he has reviewed... I admit to having limited experience). That may be a pain in the butt, but it also is good for the game over-all, so I try to just take a deep breath and deal with it.

 

I've dealt with a number of reviewers, both local and remote, since 2005, and one thing I will say in their defense is that they tend to try very hard on the side of NOT showing favoritism. I think that they learn very early-on how that can turn and bite them.

[knowschad]

Do you realize how few people actually know what you're talking about anymore with that "reviewer are dogs" thing?

 

The real Sapience Trek:

 

(he sometimes can't see houses because of the hair in his eyes)

 

Cute dog! But seriously... insider humor like that doesn't have a place in a serious thread like this, all good intents aside.

 

(I thought Mtn-Man was the origin of that in-joke, though)

[+Touchstone]

I would hope that the cache description includes some info about how there used to be houses there, but the houses are now gone.

Agreed. I wonder if these were Acquisition & Demo properties due to flood issues.

That was my guess as well. There is a river a bit to the west, and I recall news of flooding on this river. (Flood disaster risk management is a part of my paying day job.)

 

Unfortunately the cache description did not mention anything about the removed houses. If it had, then the reviewer would likely never had asked his question, and the cache would have racked up a half dozen finds by now.

Interesting Wiki article regarding the area:

 

2011 Red River Flood

 

The flood area apparently extended from Winnipeg to South of Fargo:

 

 

Pretty sad reading. Puts into perspective how powerful Mother Nature is, and how insignificant a squabble over one cache can be. One person lost their life in the Fargo/Moorhead area while trying to sandbag their home. Thoughts and prayers to those that lost loved ones and homes.

[+J Grouchy]

I did notice you still left out some correspondence that is applicable.

 

I also noticed a gap in the timeline, referring to your emailed response to the reviewer...but based on your first email, it's kind of unnecessary for me to see. You already presented your own self in a pretty unflattering light with your initial response.

 

 

I saw nothing discourteous about the initial reviewer communication, yet your own is quite rude.

 

So I really didn't need to read any further to know that you seem to have overreacted have only compounded the issue by coming in here and trying to lay blame on the reviewer.

[+Mudfrog]

archiedais,,

 

It's a shame that you are being so defensive. I imagine that all of us have come across caches that we know don't meet guidelines. Even so, there are many reasons that they had been published. Some of those could have met existing guidelines at the time they were published and even though they don't meet current guidelines, they are grandfathered. Some are special in some way and after a more extensive review, were published. Being that reviewers are human, there's no doubt that some were published when a reviewer missed something during the review process. And of course the main reason, imo, that we see caches which don't meet guidelines is because people placing them fudge the facts or flat out lie to their reviewers about the listing.

 

For the most part, it's not the reviewer's fault that these caches are out there. Again, reviewers are human so sure, some partiality could creep into the mix. Honestly though, i'd bet money this doesn't happen very often. They may not be in the direct spotlight but reviewers are seen and i imagine that they make special efforts to mind their p&qs.

 

While i don't know everything that went on with your cache(s) submissions, i doubt your reviewer is out to get you. From what i have read, it looks like the one example brought up should have been quick and painless to resolve.

 

Your reviewer's wording "a place that I don't believe you actually hid the cache" threw me off when i first read it. I too might have taken it the wrong way,,, at first read. But it was explained better in one of the follow up replies and after reading it again, it was easy to realize what was meant. All that had to be done by you was to post an additional reviewer note with more details and you'd have had a published cache...

[+narcissa]

This entire issue would have been avoided had the cache owner simply answered the reviewer's direct and highly relevant questions. How do you become a "preferred cache hider?" Give reviewers the same courtesy they give you by approaching each cache listing as a blank slate that requires full details and leaves nothing to assumption.

[+GeoBain]

How do you become a "preferred cache hider?" Give reviewers the same courtesy they give you by approaching each cache listing as a blank slate that requires full details and leaves nothing to assumption.

 

+1

[Pup Patrol]

Is it possible to include photographs, time & date stamped, in a Reviewer Note in the submission form?

 

B.

[+Touchstone]

Is it possible to include photographs, time & date stamped, in a Reviewer Note in the submission form?

 

B.

I know the date and time feature has been requested by the FTF crowd, but there's probably some internal audit trail that's visible to the Lackeys. The photo issue is easily included in the Reviewer Note option during the process. I would probably just link it from offsite so that it wouldn't appear in the Listing Gallery.

[Pup Patrol]

Is it possible to include photographs, time & date stamped, in a Reviewer Note in the submission form?

 

B.

I know the date and time feature has been requested by the FTF crowd, but there's probably some internal audit trail that's visible to the Lackeys. The photo issue is easily included in the Reviewer Note option during the process. I would probably just link it from offsite so that it wouldn't appear in the Listing Gallery.

 

A "general location" photo, in this case showing the empty lot, wouldn't spoil the find for future seekers.

 

And the cache owner can delete the photo after the cache is published, if it is published.

 

I just thought that including a photo in the Reviewer Note would clear up any questions, before they got asked.

 

Seems like it would be a good thing to include in Earthcache submissions, too.

 

B.

[+Touchstone]

Earthcaches are kind of a different animal. I'd assume that the area has already been vetted by the land manager, so I'm not sure what adding a photo in that process will add.

[+barefootjeff]

Is it possible to include photographs, time & date stamped, in a Reviewer Note in the submission form?

 

B.

I would probably just link it from offsite so that it wouldn't appear in the Listing Gallery.

 

I always now include photos of the hide and any waypoints in the reviewer's note, and they automatically disappear without trace once the cache is published.

 

Jeff

[Pup Patrol]

Is it possible to include photographs, time & date stamped, in a Reviewer Note in the submission form?

 

B.

 

I always now include photos of the hide and any waypoints in the reviewer's note, and they automatically disappear without trace once the cache is published.

 

Jeff

 

That's good to know. Thanks for the information.

 

B.

[+The A-Team]

I always now include photos of the hide and any waypoints in the reviewer's note, and they automatically disappear without trace once the cache is published.

To be clear, you're attaching photos to the Reviewer Note log in the same way you would if you were attaching photos to a Found It log? If so, it makes sense that the photo would get auto-deleted along with the log.

 

That's a great idea. So great that I'm shocked this isn't even mentioned as a possibility in any of the documentation, when it really should be strongly recommended, if not required.

 

I honestly hadn't even considered doing this before, but I think I'll start doing it going forward.

[Pup Patrol]

I always now include photos of the hide and any waypoints in the reviewer's note, and they automatically disappear without trace once the cache is published.

To be clear, you're attaching photos to the Reviewer Note log in the same way you would if you were attaching photos to a Found It log? If so, it makes sense that the photo would get auto-deleted along with the log.

 

That's a great idea. So great that I'm shocked this isn't even mentioned as a possibility in any of the documentation, when it really should be strongly recommended, if not required.

 

I honestly hadn't even considered doing this before, but I think I'll start doing it going forward.

 

It's been some time since I've used the submission form, so I didn't know if photos could be included in the Reviewer Notes. Seems like such a helpful, simple addition to the submission process.

 

I have been thinking of suggesting that a step-by-step, illustrated tutorial on how to complete the submission form would be a valuable asset in the Help Center.

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

The mention of adding photos would do well here, a picture being worth 1,000 words.:

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Review Process: Hiding a Geocache

1.6. Getting Your Geocache Listed Quickly

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=77

 

Make sure your geocache page is complete and accurate.

 

1. Use the "Note To Reviewer" wisely. Provide details that may be helpful to the community volunteer reviewer.

 

These automatically go away upon publication of your geocache. The public does not see them.

 

Include any permissions.

 

Include any map anomalies that you have noticed. For example, the map still shows a railroad track but you know that the tracks are gone and it is now a bicycle path.

 

Explain in detail anything that might be confusing.

 

B.

[+Lil Devil]

It's been some time since I've used the submission form, so I didn't know if photos could be included in the Reviewer Notes. Seems like such a helpful, simple addition to the submission process.

It should be noted that including pictures in the reviewer note is not directly a function on the Submission Form. Rather, you have to submit just the text of your reviewer note. Then, after the complete form is submitted, go to your unpublished cache page, scroll to the bottom, find your Reviewer Note log, and add a picture to it.

[+L0ne.R]

I always now include photos of the hide and any waypoints in the reviewer's note, and they automatically disappear without trace once the cache is published.

To be clear, you're attaching photos to the Reviewer Note log in the same way you would if you were attaching photos to a Found It log? If so, it makes sense that the photo would get auto-deleted along with the log.

 

That's a great idea. So great that I'm shocked this isn't even mentioned as a possibility in any of the documentation, when it really should be strongly recommended, if not required.

 

I honestly hadn't even considered doing this before, but I think I'll start doing it going forward.

 

Yes, I think this would be a very useful requirement. The reviewer can see the cache container, and for instance, see whether the CO is actually hiding a micro cache but listing it as small. See if for instance, the birdhouse cache is screwed to a tree vs. tied to a tree or hung from a branch.

 

I submit a cache 2-3 times a year and would have no qualms about including a photo. Especially if it helps make the process easier, and help with quality control.

[+The Rat]

It looks like the OP admitted defeat once the original reviewer told the whole story. For those who got hooked by the subject line, I suggest ignoring the long accusatory argument above. As others have said, there is no such thing as a preferred CO. I am not a reviewer but I am pretty sure that a CO's past hides and dealings with a reviewer may indeed influence him or her. If you have hidden dozens of caches and they get favorite points, no complaints, and you are polite with the reviewer, the reviewer is probably going to trust that you've done things right and approve quickly if there are no obvious issues. On the other hand, if you're newbie, or your caches have caused problems, e.g. NA or NM logs that go unaddressed for months, previous mistakes on submissions, etc., the reviewer may remember and take a closer look. It's just human nature to deal differently with people who cause you problems than you do with those who don't. That doesn't mean unfair treatment or different rules, just a more cautious or untrusting approach.

[Keystone]

Thank you to The Rat for a fair summary. There are no "preferred hiders" but there are hiders who will get the benefit of a doubt based on past trustworthy dealings, and there are hiders who will be quizzed in more detail based on prior lack of transparency. But in the end, every cache that meets the listing guidelines should get published regardless of the hider.

 

I think one of the reasons why so many reviewers came to post in this thread (myself included) is because a study of the cache owner's prior history did NOT disclose a pattern of discrimination. The vast majority of his hides sailed through without reviewer comment in any reviewer notes, publishing on a same day or next day basis. A few times, questions were asked, including in this case because the reviewer's map view showed a house 20 feet away from the cache location. If anything, the OP fit the definition of a "preferred cache hider" and I noted this in my very first post to the thread.

 

We were told in the very first post that "Everything I have ever had reviewed by that reviewer has been questioned over and over." I questioned the factual basis to support that statement, and I renewed that question after the reviewer posted to confirm there was no history of emails back and forth.

 

We were also told that this was a general question, not a question about "that reviewer" but I continue to believe that the posts from the OP say otherwise.

[+Shop99er]

It looks like the OP admitted defeat once the original reviewer told the whole story. For those who got hooked by the subject line, I suggest ignoring the long accusatory argument above. As others have said, there is no such thing as a preferred CO. I am not a reviewer but I am pretty sure that a CO's past hides and dealings with a reviewer may indeed influence him or her. If you have hidden dozens of caches and they get favorite points, no complaints, and you are polite with the reviewer, the reviewer is probably going to trust that you've done things right and approve quickly if there are no obvious issues. On the other hand, if you're newbie, or your caches have caused problems, e.g. NA or NM logs that go unaddressed for months, previous mistakes on submissions, etc., the reviewer may remember and take a closer look. It's just human nature to deal differently with people who cause you problems than you do with those who don't. That doesn't mean unfair treatment or different rules, just a more cautious or untrusting approach.

 

This is pretty much what I've seen over the last 12 years.

 

When I started out, nearly all of my submissions were reviewed by the now retired Team Misguided. Two things happened during those first several caches. They mentored me in the art of hiding per the guidelines, and we became friends in real life.

 

As more time went by, I tended to get published as if there was an express lane. Mainly due to having learned the lessons well. The very few times I've has any Reviewer question me, I had forgotten some detail (like hours) on an event I was gonna hold. My current event being the most recent example.

 

I've only had one physical cache turned down, due to proximity issues. And if that offending cache ever goes away, I'm still gonna hide that one.

 

The current Reviewers up here seem to be doing a fine job. They have all be at this game as long or longer them me, and I know all of them. That doesn't mean I'll be a preferred hider, any more than anyone else. But they all know there will be as close to zero issues as possible when I submit.

[+WarNinjas]

If you want to be a "preferred hider" then go to a event with your reviewer and have a beer with him or her. That is what we did. Awesome guy! Then the next day we hid a cache about stuff we learned at the event about hiding puzzles. It didn't have any proximity issues and we now know the guy so it should all be good to go!

NOPE! It got denied and questioned. My point is that it is all about the cache. Not the CO. They are not being personal about it just doing there job. However I think being cool with your reviewer could help. Just be friendly. We are all working at the same goal to have fun with this game.

[+The Rat]

I don't think reviewers enforce the rules differently with different people, but they do have some discretion, so it's wise to stay on their good side. For example, I hid a puzzle cache in this notoriously puzzle-dense area and got denied due proximity to another puzzle final. This had happened before, but this time the reviewer gave not only the name of the puzzle but the exact distance from my intended final (but not the direction). I don't believe that enabled me to find that other cache, but it wasn't hard to figure out generally where it must be, i.e. the direction, and move my final so it could get published without having to negotiate with the other CO. I know that a final on one of my caches blocked someone else's intended final and the reviewer gave her my name and the cache ID. We were able to work out a way for us both to put/keep our caches where we wanted. Not all reviewers will do this for you. Some will just reject the placement. Maybe they'll give you the name of the CO of the blocking cache, but no more. I've also seen rare exceptions made to the rules for cachers and I'm sure the reputation and history of the CO has been a big factor. For example, one cacher wanted to place geoart in SF Bay with puzzles, but the shore was more than 2 miles from some of the proposed posted coordinates. The reviewer allowed this, but only with strict conditions about placing the final caches as close as possible, etc.

[+Sapience Trek]

There are google map errors that lead to minor problems like this one with cache publication ... and then there are real problems with google map errors.

[+niraD]

There are google map errors that lead to minor problems like this one with cache publication ... and then there are real problems with google map errors.

I hate it when that happens...

[+justintim1999]

Thank you, MN.Fruitcacke, for providing the complete history on the review of this cache, and for confirming that there were no other emails exchanged back and forth with this cache owner.

 

I'm still a little confused, as the cache owner alleges that this same back and forth process has occurred with every cache you have ever reviewed for him. I am not seeing any evidence of that. I asked the cache owner to help us understand the basis for his statement, but he has refused to do so. I will instead choose to believe your summary of the email history between the two of you.

 

As Paul Harvey put it, "now you know the REST of the story."

 

Question. Once a cache is published dose the cache owner have access to the original reviewers notes?

[Keystone]

No, not unless the cache owner has saved them in email. The reviewer, of course, can see archived logs.

[+frinklabs]

No, not unless the cache owner has saved them in email. The reviewer, of course, can see archived logs.

 

Question: Can the reviewer see a history of changes to the cache? If the CO changes the difficulty or terrain, or changes attributes after submitting and/or publication?

[+frinklabs]

No, not unless the cache owner has saved them in email. The reviewer, of course, can see archived logs.

 

Question: Can the reviewer see a history of changes to the cache? If the CO changes the difficulty or terrain, or changes attributes after submitting and/or publication?

 

After asking this same question previously also with no response, I am getting the sense that it is privileged information that is not allowed to be shared?