Does my cache have "an Agenda?"

[+Spandoc]

I recently submitted a new hide and after a couple of days I got an email from a reviewer asking that I "remove most of the first paragraph of [my] description" because "such wording constitutes an Agenda."  I can understand such precautions; we certainly don't want to bring politics or religion into the game, for example.  However, I think that it is an overreach in this case and I would just like to hear some other opinions.  Here is the background:

 

I live in the Eastern Sierra Nevada which in the recent past had five years of severe drought, then we had a good snow year, and last year was average to below average.  We had fires burning nearby all summer long.  Yosemite National Park (about an hour away) was actually closed to the public for about three weeks this summer due to a forest fire.  We had smoke in our town for months.  And of course there were huge, devastating wildfires throughout the state like the Carr fire north of here this summer that burned over 350 square miles.  We get a lot of tourists here, many of them camping.  Reminding people about the dangers of unattended fires does not seem to be "an Agenda" especially when the cache is hidden a few feet away from a gigantic, roadside, 20 foot tall wooden 'statue' of Smokey the Bear that says in huge letters "Prevent Wildfires."  

 

Now, I understand that there is a fine line between 'having an agenda' and wanting to remind people of how fragile an area is.  I don't think that taking advantage of giant Smokey the Bear sign to remind people to be careful with their fires and how best to do it constitutes "an Agenda," rather it seems like something we could all agree on, similar to cache descriptions that say things like 'be careful of the fragile ground cover in this area' or 'please don't disturb the birds nesting in this area.'  However, perhaps I am wrong?  I would genuinely like to hear some opinions, whether pro or con, on this cache description on a cache hidden next to Smokey the Bear alongside a highway that cuts through tinder dry forestland.  Thanks!  The first and last lines are from the reviewer (name removed). 

 

Thanks for the submission, but I'll have to ask you to remove most of the first paragraph of your Description:

"Please be careful with campfires here in the dry Eastern Sierra. There are frequently strong winds that can blow embers out of fire pits even if there are no flames. If you drive off or go to bed without wetting down these embers a huge fire can start due to the frequently dry conditions and the number of dead trees and vegetation in the area. Thanks! "

Such wording constitutes an Agenda.

 

The second paragraph of the cache description is just a brief note about the history of the Smokey the Bear campaign. 

Edited October 7, 2018 by Spandoc

[+Touchstone]

You'll get a variety of opinions in the Forum, so I'm not sure this is the best place to get resolution on your submission.  Might be best to contact Appeals to get a final ruling:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/

 

Click on the "Contact Us" link on the bottom half of the page and fill out the form.  In the "What can we help you with?" box, option 9 will direct your request to the Appeals team.

[+Max and 99]

10 minutes ago, Spandoc said:

I recently submitted a new hide and after a couple of days I got an email from a reviewer asking that I "remove most of the first paragraph of [my] description" because "such wording constitutes an Agenda."  I can understand such precautions; we certainly don't want to bring politics or religion into the game, for example.  However, I think that it is an overreach in this case and I would just like to hear some other opinions.  Here is the background:

 

I live in the Eastern Sierra Nevada which in the recent past had five years of severe drought, then we had a good snow year, and last year was average to below average.  We had fires burning nearby all summer long.  Yosemite National Park (about an hour away) was actually closed to the public for about three weeks this summer due to a forest fire.  We had smoke in our town for months.  And of course there were huge, devastating wildfires throughout the state like the Carr fire north of here this summer that burned over 350 square miles.  We get a lot of tourists here, many of them camping.  Reminding people about the dangers of unattended fires does not seem to be "an Agenda" especially when the cache is hidden a few feet away from a gigantic, roadside, 20 foot tall wooden 'statue' of Smokey the Bear that says in huge letters "Prevent Wildfires."  

 

Now, I understand that there is a fine line between 'having an agenda' and wanting to remind people of how fragile an area is.  I don't think that taking advantage of giant Smokey the Bear sign to remind people to be careful with their fires and how best to do it constitutes "an Agenda," rather it seems like something we could all agree on, similar to cache descriptions that say things like 'be careful of the fragile ground cover in this area' or 'please don't disturb the birds nesting in this area.'  However, perhaps I am wrong?  I would genuinely like to hear some opinions, whether pro or con, on this cache description on a cache hidden next to Smokey the Bear alongside a highway that cuts through tinder dry forestland.  Thanks!  The first and last lines are from the reviewer (name removed). 

 

Thanks for the submission, but I'll have to ask you to remove most of the first paragraph of your Description:

"Please be careful with campfires here in the dry Eastern Sierra. There are frequently strong winds that can blow embers out of fire pits even if there are no flames. If you drive off or go to bed without wetting down these embers a huge fire can start due to the frequently dry conditions and the number of dead trees and vegetation in the area. Thanks! "

Such wording constitutes an Agenda.

 

The second paragraph of the cache description is just a brief note about the history of the Smokey the Bear campaign. 

Sounds like a good place for a cache, near the Smokey Bear. I totally expected to agree with you about the agenda until I read the description. I think it is an agenda considering geocachers are there to find a cache, not camp, and the paragraph addresses fire/camping issues.

 

However, I think your paragraph should be accepted considering the extreme fire dangers in your area. I'm my opinion, HQ and Reviewers are too picky about these things. I wasn't even allowed to post a photo of a box of waffles on my puzzle page.  

If you go to Appeals for this cache can you give an update, please?

[+on4bam]

That doesn't look like an "agenda" it looks like common sense to put such a warning on the cache listing.

 

[+arisoft]

Usually you need only change your wording a little bit to avoid agenda. Instead of asking to do or not to do something you may just inform and present facts.

 

For example you are not allowed to ask to find your cache - It is an agenda - indeed.

[+niraD]

I am not a volunteer reviewer, and I don't even play one on TV, but...

 

2 hours ago, Spandoc said:

"Please [do something]. If you [do something]. Thanks! "

There's your agenda. Yes, it's a worthy agenda, but it's still an agenda.

 

Instead, focus on facts. For example, details about the Smokey the Bear campaign, or:

2 hours ago, Spandoc said:

"[...] here in the dry Eastern Sierra. There are frequently strong winds that can blow embers out of fire pits even if there are no flames. [...] without wetting down these embers a huge fire can start due to the frequently dry conditions and the number of dead trees and vegetation in the area. [...]"

 

[+Team Microdot]

The reviewer taking this stance seems petty and contra to common sense - especially given that Groundspeak provides a related attribute.

 

I assume you have that attribute on the page?

[+GeoTrekker26]

Change the Owner Name on this cache to Douse Your Campfires.

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by GeoTrekker26

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, Spandoc said:

The second paragraph of the cache description is just a brief note about the history of the Smokey the Bear campaign. 

 

Are you calling Smokey Bear "Smokey the Bear" on that cache page?

[+Max and 99]

8 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

Are you calling Smokey Bear "Smokey the Bear" on that cache page?

 

Good catch!

https://www.smokeybear.com/en/smokey-for-kids/about-smokey

[+Harry Dolphin]

But, it is an agendum.  Nothing to do with geocaching.  

[+Pork King]

2 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

But, it is an agendum.  Nothing to do with geocaching.  

Just because it is doesn't directly relate to geocaching doesn't make it an agendum.  I've found and hidden caches near historic places that talk about the history of said place, of which geocaching had no mention.  Caches are near natural springs that invite finders to try the water, also not geocaching-related.  Such a request might be interpreted as more of an agenda as OP's example.  Of course, as we all know, previous caches in no way set precedence for future cache publications.   

 

If OP feels strongly enough about the situation, I would definitely appeal this decision.  

 

 

[+Spandoc]

Thanks to all who responded to my request for input.  Based on comments from a couple of you I edited the description and made it more impersonal and general.  I also wrote to the reviewer citing my confusion over the original description having 'an agenda.'  After submitting the edit the reviewer has now posted the cache.  So thanks also to him/her for this decision.  And thanks to the person who spotted my use in the forum here of saying Smokey 'the' Bear.  I did not use the name in the cache description, only here, but yes, the word 'the' is not part of the name.  Apparently I have been calling him Smokey the Bear in error for decades, but no more.  ;-)  Here is the edited first paragraph of the description of the cache which is now published.  

 

Only YOU can prevent forest fires!  The cache is close to the sign, but NOT on it.  There are hundreds of campsites nearby here in the dry Eastern Sierra Nevada. There are frequently strong winds that can blow embers out of fire pits even if there are no visible flames.  As Smokey would say, without wetting down these embers a huge fire can start due to the frequently dry conditions and the number of dead trees and vegetation in the area.  Smokey thanks you for keeping this in mind! Read on for a bit more on the Smokey Bear campaign.  

[+funkymunkyzone]

Strange - I thought your first wording was sensible and consistent with the kind of take photos and leave footprints ethos the Groundspeak would like to present about geocaching.  Whereas what you had to reword it to seems quite patronising (I know, not intentionally).

[+Goldenwattle]

I see nothing at all wrong with your words. Good words in the circumstance.

 

The only time I have been pulled up was when I mentioned the route of a multicache passed where it was possible to get a coffee. I was not pushing a business and in fact there is a choice, so hard to push a single business. It's something I like to know; where I can take a break from geocaching, sit and have a coffee. To me, it's the same as take a break and admire the view. Your route will pass the local shops got through though, which often means, coffee available. Same thing; different words.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I see nothing at all wrong with your words. Good words in the circumstance.

 

The only time I have been pulled up was when I mentioned the route of a multicache passed where it was possible to get a coffee. I was not pushing a business and in fact there is a choice, so hard to push a single business. It's something I like to know; where I can take a break from geocaching, sit and have a coffee. To me, it's the same as take a break and admire the view. Your route will pass the local shops got through though, which often means, coffee available. Same thing; different words.

 

Curious, as there's actually a Food Nearby attribute which I've used occasionally. The knife and fork implies it's bought food rather than forraged from the woods. Maybe food's okay but coffee isn't.

 

[+Team Microdot]

On 07/10/2018 at 8:50 PM, Team Microdot said:

The reviewer taking this stance seems petty and contra to common sense - especially given that Groundspeak provides a related attribute.

 

I assume you have that attribute on the page?

 

I've changed my mind.

 

Having read the cache page in full I agree with the reviewer that it amounts to nothing more than an agenda.

 

I count 293 words in the cache description and only 29 - less than 10% that have anything to do with the geocache itself.

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I've changed my mind.

 

Having read the cache page in full I agree with the reviewer that it amounts to nothing more than an agenda.

 

I count 293 words in the cache description and only 29 - less than 10% that have anything to do with the geocache itself.

 

 

You forgot the hint.

 

[+Team Microdot]

1 minute ago, funkymunkyzone said:

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I've changed my mind.

 

Having read the cache page in full I agree with the reviewer that it amounts to nothing more than an agenda.

 

I count 293 words in the cache description and only 29 - less than 10% that have anything to do with the geocache itself.

 

 

You forgot the hint.

 

 

I ignored it rather than forgot it.

 

Focused on the description - as indicated by wot I rote

 

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Curious, as there's actually a Food Nearby attribute which I've used occasionally. The knife and fork implies it's bought food rather than forraged from the woods. Maybe food's okay but coffee isn't.

 

Yes, I've used that attribute, but on some GPSs attributes don't show up, so of no use. Hence I gave that information. However that attribute makes me think of restaurants, rather then cafes/coffee shops.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Goldenwattle

[+thebruce0]

On 10/7/2018 at 10:32 PM, Spandoc said:

Thanks to all who responded to my request for input.  Based on comments from a couple of you I edited the description and made it more impersonal and general.  I also wrote to the reviewer citing my confusion over the original description having 'an agenda.'  After submitting the edit the reviewer has now posted the cache.

 

Good job taking the reviewer input seriously and understanding what the real issue was. Though it does seem kind of petty about the nature of the "agenda", it literally was encouraging someone to do something and advocating a certain way of doing something.  Extremely baseline, but the reviewer was likely applying the standard to their determined threshold. The fact that they published it after the adjustment meant it had nothing to do with the actual concept of camping and being safe, but strictly about the wording.  Sort of like going into passive grammar to be less direct and personal.

Describing a memorial site will most likely get a pass rather than promoting what happened to cause the memorial site, eg.

Be descriptive rather than prescriptive - that more often will get a pass from reviewers.

[+captnemo]

As I make a trip up that way once in a while I've put it on my watch list.  TFTC in advance.

[+funkymunkyzone]

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Be descriptive rather than prescriptive

 

Still seems rather silly in this case.  I'd prefer to see much more prescriptive text when it comes to major safety issues such as starting a wildfire in an extremely dry area, or, for example "There is a huge cliff, so don't cross the barrier.  If you do then you might fall to your death" - that's also prescriptive and sensibly so.  Direct quote from one of my geocache hides: "WARNING: There are huge cliffs here so be VERY, VERY careful searching for this cache."  My agenda is clear - I don't want anyone to die while searching for my cache.  I suppose I could change it to "Mr T says 'I pity the fool that falls off the cliff while searching for this cache!'"

[+barefootjeff]

17 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I've changed my mind.

 

Having read the cache page in full I agree with the reviewer that it amounts to nothing more than an agenda.

 

I count 293 words in the cache description and only 29 - less than 10% that have anything to do with the geocache itself.

 

 

That last line caused me to look at some of my own hides. I have an historical one, Peat's Grave, where most of the description is about the history of GZ rather than the cache, which is just a standard Sistema placed nearby. The history of the site is the principal reason I put a cache there.

 

Also for caches placed in New South Wales national parks, it's a permission requirement to include some educational material about the park's natural and/or cultural significance, along with links to park safety and information sites. Does this make it an agenda, especially when the cache is designed to highlight those aspects of the park?

 

A lot of my other hides are themed and in some, like the Plodfoot vs The Bushranger series, the theme rather than the container dominates the description. While my themes are mostly either fictional or landscape-related (like my Chasing Waterfalls series) and are unlikely to be seen as an agenda, I could imagine some that mightn't be quite so clear-cut, like an educational series a bit north of here that's about introduced weeds, or my own All That Remains multi highlighting the area's Aboriginal heritage. At what point does a theme become an agenda?

Edited October 10, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Be descriptive rather than prescriptive

 

Still seems rather silly in this case.  I'd prefer to see much more prescriptive text when it comes to major safety issues such as starting a wildfire in an extremely dry area, or, for example "There is a huge cliff, so don't cross the barrier.  If you do then you might fall to your death" - that's also prescriptive and sensibly so.  Direct quote from one of my geocache hides: "WARNING: There are huge cliffs here so be VERY, VERY careful searching for this cache."  My agenda is clear - I don't want anyone to die while searching for my cache.  I suppose I could change it to "Mr T says 'I pity the fool that falls off the cliff while searching for this cache!'"

 

I don't think the agenda is about how to be safe - the agenda in question was encouraging people to go camping (and then how to do it safely). In your bold case, the agenda is, well, to go searching for the cache (and to be safe doing it). The former isn't geocaching, so it'd be considered agenda-free if the description talks about how camping is allowed, and that there are safety regulations in place - just not to actually go camping . The way I see it, if a listing promotes anything other than specifically geocaching-related (especially if it costs $ or provides a 3rd party profit), it can be considered an agenda. If ends up being allowed, that's an exception to the rule explicitly provided by a reviewer or HQ.   Events at restaurants can't require someone to pay, or promote wares such as desribing the menu.  Even mentioning the restaurant name may not be allowed. It took long enough just to allow mentioning a business name in a listing merely for providing directions to a location.  Whether that's overkill, YMMV, but that's not the point. The point is, to my understanding, an agenda is promoting (rather than describing) anything other than what's specifically geocaching-related.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

At what point does a theme become an agenda?

 

And those grey areas are really all up to the reviewer. And there've been plenty of debates about that in specific listings, that's for sure!  And that's why we have appeals. It's probably one of the last "ugly baby" judgments reviewers still have to do; that is, make a subjective judgment if it's not already clear.

[+justintim1999]

I personally don't see anything wrong with your first paragraph.  That being said I'm not a reviewer.   Despite popular belief reviewers are flesh and blood human beings.  Like all people they read and interpret things a little differently than your or I.     How you handle this situation will go a long way toward developing a good rapport with your reviewer.   I had the same situation and with a little tweaking I was able to satisfy myself and my reviewer.     Try incorporating your first paragraph into the history portion.  Sometimes a little creative writing will get you to where you want to go.   Good luck.   

[+niraD]

13 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Despite popular belief reviewers are flesh and blood human beings.

Except for the reviewers that are flesh-and-blood dogs, of course.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

15 hours ago, niraD said:

Except for the reviewers that are flesh-and-blood dogs, of course.

Isn't that expression "fleas and blood"?

[+fuzziebear3]

I think the line is when you say 'Please <do this>'.   That is the agenda.   If you just say factual information like 'This area is prone to wildfires.', that part is okay.  Even a history lesson is okay, as long as it is about facts, not opinions.  'This monument was erected in 2018 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of WWI.'   Just don't follow it up with a plea, such as 'Please take a moment to honor and remember all that died there'.  That part is an agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

Well colour me ridiculously shocked at how PC the game has gotten when you can't say "Please don't start a wildfire" because it's an agenda.  I guess, yeah, we better not offend people who like to start wildfires...

[+hzoi]

On 10/16/2018 at 4:15 AM, funkymunkyzone said:

Well colour me ridiculously shocked at how PC the game has gotten when you can't say "Please don't start a wildfire" because it's an agenda.  I guess, yeah, we better not offend people who like to start wildfires...

 

The rule is no agendas, no attempts to persuade anyone to take a particular point of view one way or another.  The rule isn't let's pick which agendas are OK and which aren't - that's the point of having a no agenda rule, so the reviewers and Groundspeak aren't in the position of differentiating between what is an allowable agenda and what isn't.

 

I agree that it seems petty to object to wildfire prevention as an agenda, in this particular case.  I don't like wildfires.  No one should.  But the guidelines look at the macro view.  Stripping out agendas keeps the fringe elements from coming in with agenda caches that would take away from what should be an enjoyable pastime. I don't want to think about politics or religion or whether or not to eat whales (they're delicious, by the way) or any of that.  I just want to enjoy a recreational activity without someone putting a bumper sticker on it.

 

The cache got published, so nothing to be shocked over.

[+funkymunkyzone]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

 

The rule is no agendas, no attempts to persuade anyone to take a particular point of view one way or another.  The rule isn't let's pick which agendas are OK and which aren't - that's the point of having a no agenda rule, so the reviewers and Groundspeak aren't in the position of differentiating between what is an allowable agenda and what isn't.

 

I agree that it seems petty to object to wildfire prevention as an agenda, in this particular case.  I don't like wildfires.  No one should.  But the guidelines look at the macro view.  Stripping out agendas keeps the fringe elements from coming in with agenda caches that would take away from what should be an enjoyable pastime. I don't want to think about politics or religion or whether or not to eat whales (they're delicious, by the way) or any of that.  I just want to enjoy a recreational activity without someone putting a bumper sticker on it.

 

The cache got published, so nothing to be shocked over.

 

Seriously for a moment...

 

The original text was "Please be careful with campfires here in the dry Eastern Sierra", which is right up there as an agenda like "Please be careful not to trample on the plants at GZ" or "Please don't remove stones from the stone wall, the cache is not there", or even "Please use stealth".

 

Let's get real.  It was a silly over-reaction by the reviewer.  We hear the line that "reviewers are flesh and blood humans/dogs" a lot, and that they can make mistakes, but sometimes I think reviewers need to be reminded they are human too, and that it's ok to sometimes admit that they made a mistake.

 

[+BCandMsKitty]

not a silly over-reaction at all.

If they were to allow even as good a concept as the agenda you had in your description, then that would set a precedent and have to allow other "well intentioned" agendas.

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

 

The rule is no agendas, no attempts to persuade anyone to take a particular point of view one way or another.  The rule isn't let's pick which agendas are OK and which aren't - that's the point of having a no agenda rule, so the reviewers and Groundspeak aren't in the position of differentiating between what is an allowable agenda and what isn't.

 

 

 

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

The original text was "Please be careful with campfires here in the dry Eastern Sierra", which is right up there as an agenda like "Please be careful not to trample on the plants at GZ" or "Please don't remove stones from the stone wall, the cache is not there", or even "Please use stealth".

 

Apples and oranges.  The cache in question is hidden on the shoulder of a four lane US Federal Highway.  Starting a campfire along the highway is irrelevant to finding the cache.  The other quoted cautions are directly relevant to finding the caches to which they pertain.

 

I cannot think of a cache that requires starting a campfire in order to find the cache.  Similarly, I'll publish caches outside a church, but not if they include language encouraging geocachers to visit a church service on Sunday.

 

I'll stay at the very top of your slippery slope, but thank you very much for pointing out the hill to me.

[+niraD]

1 minute ago, Keystone said:

I cannot think of a cache that requires starting a campfire in order to find the cache.

Challenge accepted!

 

Maybe?

 

Actually, I can think of ways to make a gadget cache require heat, but it would be harder to require an actual campfire rather than just a match, or just a lighter, or just a cordless hair dryer.

[+barefootjeff]

1 minute ago, niraD said:

6 minutes ago, Keystone said:

I cannot think of a cache that requires starting a campfire in order to find the cache.

Challenge accepted!

 

Maybe?

 

Actually, I can think of ways to make a gadget cache require heat, but it would be harder to require an actual campfire rather than just a match, or just a lighter, or just a cordless hair dryer.

 

A quick search found GC7K0F9 in the southwest wilderness of Tasmania, which the CO suggests is a four to five day hike to reach. I would imagine starting a campfire or three would be an integral part of getting that smiley (which nobody has yet but it was only published six months ago).

[+dprovan]

17 minutes ago, BCandMsKitty said:

not a silly over-reaction at all.

If they were to allow even as good a concept as the agenda you had in your description, then that would set a precedent and have to allow other "well intentioned" agendas.

Well, the point is that you really have to squint at it to recognize that it's technically an agenda. In fact, you have to squint so hard, you'd laugh at anyone that raised this example to argue that their agenda should also be allowed. To me, the notable part of this is that the reviewer even though to object. After that, I don't find it very interesting to consider whether he should or shouldn't have objected: something bugged him, it was resolved, so nothing to see here.

[Keystone]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

Challenge accepted!

 

It wasn't a challenge post.  If I'd made a challenge post, I would have used a green question mark in the post.

I wish that challenge posts had their own post type.

[+funkymunkyzone]

23 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

I wish that challenge posts had their own post type.

 

It would certainly make it easy to spot them!

[+CachedIronSkillet]

On 10/17/2018 at 10:53 PM, Keystone said:

I wish that challenge posts had their own post type.

 

Keystone making this post made me giggle a little and reminded me that lawyers CAN have a sense of humor.