Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
Team Microdot

Not family friendly?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I would hope so too but said Lackey made it clear that my only option was to take it to appeals, which saddens me a little as ending up at appeals feels like something of a failure to me.

 

In this case though both the reviewer and the Lackey made it quite clear that they had no intention of discussing further - not that there was any discussion at all between me re-enabling on the basis that there was no grounds for the alleged commercial guideline infringement and the archival for the alleged 'not family friendly'. 🤕


Stop humiliating yourself... :(

On the other hand, thanks to the good old^H^H^H new GDPR, you can always remove the whole thread. B)

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, BillyGee said:

On the other hand, thanks to the good old^H^H^H new GDPR, you can always remove the whole thread. B)

shutterstock_209263234.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I would hope so too but said Lackey made it clear that my only option was to take it to appeals, which saddens me a little as ending up at appeals feels like something of a failure to me.

It's not unique to GS. I've found that everyone I run into in this situation -- mainly forum moderators -- just take for granted that the people they're dealing with will be irrational, so they see no purpose in explaining themselves. That makes me sad that their default attitude is that conversation is pointless when exercising authority.

 

But it makes me even sadder when I consider that it's probably a lesson they've learned the hard way...

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I would hope so too but said Lackey made it clear that my only option was to take it to appeals, which saddens me a little as ending up at appeals feels like something of a failure to me.

 

In this case though both the reviewer and the Lackey made it quite clear that they had no intention of discussing further - not that there was any discussion at all between me re-enabling on the basis that there was no grounds for the alleged commercial guideline infringement and the archival for the alleged 'not family friendly'. 🤕

I hope I can help set your mind at ease.

 

The Lackey who handled this matter is on the Community Relations team - the people who read the emails sent in to HQ.  Most of the time, when they direct the archival of a cache, there's no controversy:  "The landowner wrote to HQ and asked for this cache to be removed from their property."  Reviewer archives cache.  End of story.

 

Appeals are handled by a different group, the Community Volunteer Services team.  This group oversees the Reviewers and provides guidance on how to apply and interpret the cache listing guidelines.  Whenever a Reviewer and a Cache Owner disagree on the outcome of a cache review, the archival of a cache, etc., the Appeals route gets the issue in front of the experts on interpreting the listing guidelines.  So, you should not view "being sent to Appeals" as a failure in any way.  It's just the avenue to get a closer look at the issue.  I always welcome the opportunity when a cache owner appeals my decision.  I want to get the *right answer* so that I can be confident that I'm applying the listing guidelines correctly.  This process promotes consistency from Reviewers across the world.

 

(I have no opinion about your particular issue and the likelihood of a successful appeal, as this relates to an earthcache - an item outside my jurisdiction.  Good luck to you, though.)

Edited by Keystone
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 6

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Keystone said:

I hope I can help set your mind at ease.

 

The Lackey who handled this matter is on the Community Relations team - the people who read the emails sent in to HQ.  Most of the time, when they direct the archival of a cache, there's no controversy:  "The landowner wrote to HQ and asked for this cache to be removed from their property."  Reviewer archives cache.  End of story.

 

Appeals are handled by a different group, the Community Volunteer Services team.  This group oversees the Reviewers and provides guidance on how to apply and interpret the cache listing guidelines.  Whenever a Reviewer and a Cache Owner disagree on the outcome of a cache review, the archival of a cache, etc., the Appeals route gets the issue in front of the experts on interpreting the listing guidelines.  So, you should not view "being sent to Appeals" as a failure in any way.  It's just the avenue to get a closer look at the issue.  I always welcome the opportunity when a cache owner appeals my decision.  I want to get the *right answer* so that I can be confident that I'm applying the listing guidelines correctly.  This process promotes consistency from Reviewers across the world.

 

(I have no opinion about your particular issue and the likelihood of a successful appeal, as this relates to an earthcache - an item outside my jurisdiction.  Good luck to you, though.)

 

Thanks for taking the time to share that information. It does sound like a well thought-out, quality controlled system of processes 👍

 

And it's nice to see that as a reviewer you see the appeal process as an opportunity and hopefully the same goes for all reviewers 😊

 

It does though pain me slightly that this mechanism leaves a void, an absence of exchanged views between those parties most invested in the final outcome.

 

ETA - I would though just like to point out that, in this instance, the reviewer and I did not disagree. It seems that someone made a complaint and incorrectly claimed that this cache contravened commercial guidelines - which it never did. Any disagreement at this point therefore was with the complainant. The reviewer was merely conveying the complaint - although obviously the reviewer was the one to temp disable the cache to allow me time to address the complaint.

 

I addressed the complaint by confirming that there was no need to enter the store in question and thus the cache complied with the guidelines. This confirmation was made on the cache page via the enable log.

 

At this point I took the complaint to have been dealt with.

 

I wasn't expecting then the cache to be summarily archived  on the basis of a different issue entirely - with no opportunity for dialogue which is what strikes me as odd about the whole process. This is also an example of why I feel the interested parties  NOT discussing the issue at hand is less than ideal.

 

At this stage in the process the whole situation feels a lot like a game of Chinese Whispers and I don't think that's the most effective and efficient way to resolve issues with the minimum of fuss in a way that leaves everyone feeling a sense of agreement and acceptance.

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot
Realised I'd written disabled when I meant archived
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Keystone said:

So, you should not view "being sent to Appeals" as a failure in any way.

 

I fully agree. I have used appeals when a reviewer can not justify a decision in a reasonable manner. The appeals team seems to be quite diplomatic with their resolutions. 😉

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I fully agree. I have used appeals when a reviewer can not justify a decision in a reasonable manner. The appeals team seems to be quite diplomatic with their resolutions. 😉

 

Hopefully I'll hear back soon :)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Hopefully I'll hear back soon :)

Good luck and I hope you get the right result.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, lodgebarn said:

Good luck and I hope you get the right result.

 

Thanks - me too 🙂

Share this post


Link to post

So late yesterday I was invited by Groundspeak to make edits to the cache page that would allow it to be considered for unarchival.

 

Unfortunately I can't edit it right now because the fact it's archived also means no edits can be made.

 

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Unfortunately I can't edit it right now because the fact it's archived also means no edits can be made.

 

Holding my head in my hands and moaning, not knowing whether to laugh or cry :wacko: .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

So late yesterday I was invited by Groundspeak to make edits to the cache page that would allow it to be considered for unarchival.

 

Unfortunately I can't edit it right now because the fact it's archived also means no edits can be made.

 

 

I would recommend copying the description, pasting into a word processing program, making your edits, and then send the edited text back up to appeals in an email and a posted reviewer note on the cache page itself.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

I would recommend copying the description, pasting into a word processing program, making your edits, and then send the edited text back up to appeals in an email and a posted reviewer note on the cache page itself.

 

You can't post reviewer notes on an archived cache.

 

I also write my cache pages in HTML so I want to make sure that:

 

a) I have an archive copy of the original HTML

b) I don't screw up the page by porting the HTML back and forth between different pieces of software.

 

There's no point sending anything further information to appeals as they've passed this case back to the local geoaware to action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

they've passed this case back to the local geoaware

 

Good news.  You might copy the current page to a NEW cache report, and work with the geoaware on it, for edits. This allows both of you to exchange reviewer notes on the cache page - unlike the current page, that once unarchived, all logs will be seen by any watchers.

Once the new agreed upon form is set - the original page can be unarchived, edited, and finally Enabled again. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

 

Good news.  You might copy the current page to a NEW cache report, and work with the geoaware on it, for edits. This allows both of you to exchange reviewer notes on the cache page - unlike the current page, that once unarchived, all logs will be seen by any watchers.

Once the new agreed upon form is set - the original page can be unarchived, edited, and finally Enabled again. 

 

 

That sounds like an awful lot of unnecessary messing around for the sake of deleting a couple of sentences and removing one logging task.

 

I personally am not concerned about watchers seeing logs - I see no reason to sweep anything under the carpet here.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Another option is for the Geoaware to retract publication and then unarchive the cache. It would then be freely editable, you could post reviewer notes that would disappear upon re-publication, and nobody would receive notice of those reviewer notes except for the Geoaware.  When finished with language changes and HTML formatting, the page can be republished.

  • Helpful 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Another option is for the Geoaware to retract publication and then unarchive the cache. It would then be freely editable, you could post reviewer notes that would disappear upon re-publication, and nobody would receive notice of those reviewer notes except for the Geoaware.  When finished with language changes and HTML formatting, the page can be republished.

 

Would this leave existing logs intact?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, except for new reviewer notes.

 

One downside is that other geocachers will not be able to see the cache page while it's in a retracted state. This can cause confusion, especially for prior finders wishing to revisit the page.  Hopefully the editing process would go quickly.  And, in the event that you're unable to come to an agreement with Appeals and your Geoaware, they'd need to solve for having a retracted cache with lots of logs on it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Yes, except for new reviewer notes.

 

One downside is that other geocachers will not be able to see the cache page while it's in a retracted state. This can cause confusion, especially for prior finders wishing to revisit the page.  Hopefully the editing process would go quickly.  And, in the event that you're unable to come to an agreement with Appeals and your Geoaware, they'd need to solve for having a retracted cache with lots of logs on it. 

 

The edit - once I can make it - will take a few minutes.

 

I'm just going to pull all reference to the underwear store.

 

It means losing a logging task and not showing people a rare and fantastic looking rock but my options are limited.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post

So appeals concluded that requiring cachers to go near an underwear store is not family friendly.   Wow.  

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

So appeals concluded that requiring cachers to go near an underwear store is not family friendly.   Wow.  

To be honest, I'm not surprised at all.

 

I live in Europe, and from this side of the pond we often wonder (and sometimes laugh ;) ) about the very tight (US) American standards for, let's call it, "family friendlyness". It's clear that a lingerie shop can easily fall outside these standards. However, I'm slightly irritated that the whole issue is about a cache in the UK, and not the US. I would have thought that in these matters local customs would take preference over US (Groundspeak) ones. I remember several caches here in my area, which had some "naughtyness" built in (even in the listing), and neither reviewers nor cachers seemed to have any problem with it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

The edit - once I can make it - will take a few minutes.

 

I'm just going to pull all reference to the underwear store.

  

It means losing a logging task and not showing people a rare and fantastic looking rock but my options are limited.

 

These forums really need a SMH icon...

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

I live in Europe, and from this side of the pond we often wonder (and sometimes laugh ;) ) about the very tight (US) American standards for, let's call it, "family friendlyness".

 

Makes me think about a Prince hit (1992) that was "beeped"/edited in the US but was played uncensored over here a lot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

To be honest, I'm not surprised at all.

 

I live in Europe, and from this side of the pond we often wonder (and sometimes laugh ;) ) about the very tight (US) American standards for, let's call it, "family friendlyness". It's clear that a lingerie shop can easily fall outside these standards. However, I'm slightly irritated that the whole issue is about a cache in the UK, and not the US. I would have thought that in these matters local customs would take preference over US (Groundspeak) ones. I remember several caches here in my area, which had some "naughtyness" built in (even in the listing), and neither reviewers nor cachers seemed to have any problem with it at all.

 

 

I don't think it's fair to suggest that the issue(s) taken with this cache originate from the USA.

 

Statistically the 'complainant' is from the UK - although I can't say for sure as they've not contacted me or, to the best of my knowledge, logged a find (although it's not impossible that they have claimed a smiley and THEN complained - but I highly doubt it).

 

The UK reviewer who published it two years ago is the same reviewer who disabled it for the non-existent commercial guideline issue and who Groundspeak have now handed the issue back to. I now have to explain how I'm going to make the cache compliant so I've explained how it's very simple and I'll just remove all references to the underwear shop so that the EC can be unarchived - although the reviewer will have to unarchive it in the first place so that I can remove those references. It should take me about two minutes to complete the process.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Something just occurred to me.

 

In fact it occured to me previously but I'd forgotten about it and I've just been reminded of it...

 

4 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

So appeals concluded that requiring cachers to go near an underwear store is not family friendly.   Wow.  

 

Is requiring the operative word here?

 

Earthcaches can have optional tasks. The most common optional task is to invite loggers to upload a photograph of themselves at the cache location to prove they visited.

 

So could this task be an optional task perhaps?

 

That way, those that aren't offended by a shop selling undergarments could go and see the fantastic floor and those that aren't happy about it still get their smiley for completing the other logging tasks?

 

Because even if I remove this logging task - the shop and the possibility of walking past it aren't going away at all.

 

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Something just occurred to me.

 

In fact it occured to me previously but I'd forgotten about it and I've just been reminded of it...

 

4 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

So appeals concluded that requiring cachers to go near an underwear store is not family friendly.   Wow.  

 

Is requiring the operative word here?

 

Earthcaches can have optional tasks. The most common optional task is to invite loggers to upload a photograph of themselves at the cache location to prove they visited.

 

So could this task be an optional task perhaps?

 

That way, those that aren't offended by a shop selling undergarments could go and see the fantastic floor and those that aren't happy about it still get their smiley for completing the other logging tasks?

 

Because even if I remove this logging task - the shop and the possibility of walking past it aren't going away at all.

 

Just a thought.

Are there other examples of rocks in the mall not use by the EC?   Maybe listing these (along with the contested stop) as optional stops/views would work.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Are there other examples of rocks in the mall not use by the EC?   Maybe listing these (along with the contested stop) as optional stops/views would work.

 

Lots.

 

Enough to put together several additional EarthCaches but far more difficult to deliver in an effective and compelling way with one key reason being navigation.

 

In order to comply with commercial guidelines none of the locations require a person to enter - and none of them are described by their commercial name.

 

Most of the units are numbered so it's not too difficult to steer someone towards locations which have a unit number / floor number / LHS/RHS combination.

 

And the majority of the EarthCache is based underneath the prominent main glass dome - which is at the published coordinates.

 

These are the sorts of reasons why I spent months working everything out in my head before first approaching the reviewer re the commercial aspect and then approaching the property owner for permission.

 

Ergo why the location that's the subject of complaint has been a feature since the Earthcache was published two years ago - it has a clearly visible unit number above the huge open entrance.

 

Having re-read the reviewer's email though it seems that the floor being INSIDE a commercial premises is an issue whereas the position in the official guidelines is:

 

Quote

Suggests or requires the finder do any of the following

  • Go inside a business
  • Interact with employees
  • Purchase a product or service

 

On that basis my Earthcache already complies with the guidelines.

 

I could always make it very clear on the cache page that there is no need to go inside a business or interact with employees or purchase a product or service?

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot
typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

So could this task be an optional task perhaps?

 

That way, those that aren't offended by a shop selling undergarments could go and see the fantastic floor and those that aren't happy about it still get their smiley for completing the other logging tasks?

Since we don't know why this task is being forbidden, I don't think we can guess whether there's a way to talk about an optional task and explain why it's only optional without tripping over the same "problem". I doubt you can get away with, "This is an optional task because some people will offended by the location, but I can't tell you why without talking about lingerie, so please go to the location and decide for yourself whether you're offended."

 

I gather they didn't give you any justification more specific than "underwear bad"?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Since we don't know why this task is being forbidden, I don't think we can guess whether there's a way to talk about an optional task and explain why it's only optional without tripping over the same "problem". I doubt you can get away with, "This is an optional task because some people will offended by the location, but I can't tell you why without talking about lingerie, so please go to the location and decide for yourself whether you're offended."

 

I gather they didn't give you any justification more specific than "underwear bad"?

 

The reason the task is being forbidden differs depending on who you ask - which has puzzled me from the outset and things still aren't any clearer on that score.

 

For Groundspeak the reason seems to be somewhere between 'not family friendly' and 'will make finders concerned about being labeled...(something unpleasant)'

 

For the reviewer it was originally 'needs the cacher to enter a shop for task 8' but that's now become 'is inside a business'.

 

For the complainant? Who knows?

 

If the four of us could have sat down around a table I reckon there'd be a significant reduction in confusion and the whole thing would have been done and dusted in five minutes flat.

 

As it is the safest option seems to be to remove that location and that logging task completely for the sake of peace and harmony.

 

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot
another pesky typo!
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

The reason the task is being forbidden differs depending on who you ask - which has puzzled me from the outset and things still aren't any clearer on that score.

 

Yet you still felt justified in airing before the entire community.  If I were Groundspeak, I would probably just disallow the cache because of your attitude.  Rather than working things out with them, you immediately claimed victimhood in the forums.  Not behavior that most rational organizations would endorse.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

 

Yet you still felt justified in airing before the entire community.  If I were Groundspeak, I would probably just disallow the cache because of your attitude.  Rather than working things out with them, you immediately claimed victimhood in the forums.  Not behavior that most rational organizations would endorse.

 

What a very strange attitude to have!

 

My 'attitude' as you put it has been one of open, honest communication and a wish to engage in mutually respectful adult dialogue from the outset.

 

We're all grown-ups here aren't we?

 

 

  • Upvote 7
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, on4bam said:

 

Makes me think about a Prince hit (1992) that was "beeped"/edited in the US but was played uncensored over here a lot.

 

<off topic>
America's indecency rules are weird. Song lyrics that were ok 40 years ago are now censored. Tori Amos has a song with an acronym in it that can't be said, even though the acronym itself is clean.

</off topic>

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, igator210 said:

<off topic>
America's indecency rules are weird. Song lyrics that were ok 40 years ago are now censored. Tori Amos has a song with an acronym in it that can't be said, even though the acronym itself is clean.

</off topic>

It looks like nothing much has changed since Queen released their video "I want to Break Free". They were dropped like a hot potato in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Mc-NYPHaQ

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

As it is the safest option seems to be to remove that location and that logging task completely for the sake of peace and harmony.

 

 

I agree that is probably the easiest.   

If you want to try and keep the location you can try asking the reviewer if highlighting that "there is no need to go inside a business or interact with employees or purchase a product or service" is enough.

 

What I think I'd do is suggest both options.  

Option 1:  Changes to the wording to make it even clearer that there is no need to go inside a business etc.  

Option 2:  Remove the stage

 

I would make it clear that I prefer Option 1(because of the special rocks here), but if that is not possible will proceed with option 2.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, colleda said:
10 hours ago, igator210 said:

<off topic>
America's indecency rules are weird. Song lyrics that were ok 40 years ago are now censored. Tori Amos has a song with an acronym in it that can't be said, even though the acronym itself is clean.

</off topic>

It looks like nothing much has changed since Queen released their video "I want to Break Free". They were dropped like a hot potato in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Mc-NYPHaQ

 

 

Again - it's important to remember that the complaint originated inside the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

 

I agree that is probably the easiest.   

If you want to try and keep the location you can try asking the reviewer if highlighting that "there is no need to go inside a business or interact with employees or purchase a product or service" is enough.

 

What I think I'd do is suggest both options.  

Option 1:  Changes to the wording to make it even clearer that there is no need to go inside a business etc.  

Option 2:  Remove the stage

 

I would make it clear that I prefer Option 1(because of the special rocks here), but if that is not possible will proceed with option 2.

 

I'm fully prepared here, based on the current vibe, for the unarchival of the cache being the only concession I'll receive.

 

At the moment it's just a waiting game.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Team Microdot said:

 

Again - it's important to remember that the complaint originated inside the UK.

Yes, quite right. I almost put a link to Benny Hill but I bit my tonque on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, colleda said:

Yes, quite right. I almost put a link to Benny Hill but I bit my tonque on that one.

 

Or Alfred Hawthorne Hill, to give him his proper name!

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Or Alfred Hawthorne Hill, to give him his proper name!

Cue "Yakkity Sax". 🤣

Share this post


Link to post

The reviewer unarchived the EarthCache this morning.

 

I've made the required changes and left it disabled for now.

 

Heading in the right direction at last 👍

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Starting to wonder now if I'm just supposed to re-enable it or wait for further communication from the mother ship...

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Starting to wonder now if I'm just supposed to re-enable it or wait for further communication from the mother ship...

 

I would wait/ask for an acknowledge. There is no reason to hurry.

Share this post


Link to post

Well this has been a fascinating and educational read. :drama:

Weird mixed feelings at the result though. Glad it was unarchived. Confused about the required change. Somewhat understandable at possible complaints. But glad it was unarchived. Just general weirdness surrounding this one...

Share this post


Link to post

I would send a message to the reviewer asking if they are happy with the changes.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

I would send a message to the reviewer asking if they are happy with the changes.   

 

Yeah - I emailed him this morning within a few minutes of making the changes.

 

He got back to me shortly after work to confirm that I could go ahead and enable it again - https://coord.info/GC5WEPT

 

What I've learned from this experience is that working hard to comply with the guidelines does not smooth sailing guarantee.

 

The guidelines say:

 

Capture.PNG.84835f29524b37ec9cf82e340283c0f4.PNG

 

but the truth of the matter is that any part of any cache inside a business contravenes the guidelines and will be disallowed - even if, as in this case, there's absolutely no need to enter the business ( a point the reviewer continues to contest).

Share this post


Link to post

I wish the Earth Cache could've been left as is, that's very unfortunate to hear of the logisitics of why this cache had to be streamlined to be "family friendly" (really just made less interesting for a patty reason IMO). I'm glad that the cache's been brought back at least....I'm guessing you can't allude to the previous rock display on the ground of the store for that may step on the toes of the big folks at HQ. (I hope HQ can improve their communications by some degree in the future)

EDIT:

Oh....this cache is in the UK....well then, by the way this thread sounded, I thought this was in the US. 

Edited by DreamMachine74
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Yeah - I emailed him this morning within a few minutes of making the changes.

 

He got back to me shortly after work to confirm that I could go ahead and enable it again - https://coord.info/GC5WEPT

 

What I've learned from this experience is that working hard to comply with the guidelines does not smooth sailing guarantee.

 

The guidelines say:

 

Capture.PNG.84835f29524b37ec9cf82e340283c0f4.PNG

 

but the truth of the matter is that any part of any cache inside a business contravenes the guidelines and will be disallowed - even if, as in this case, there's absolutely no need to enter the business ( a point the reviewer continues to contest).

 

This past summer I tried including in my cache description. Something to the effect of "Now time to go get some ice cream" It was like 100 degrees when I published it and it was hot. The reviewer asked me to remove it as it implied promotion of the businesses in the area. Even though there are at least five I can think of within a few miles and I did not say anything specific other than welcome to my area and see what it has to offer. Needless to say I removed the line.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, DreamMachine74 said:

I'm guessing you can't allude to the previous rock display on the ground of the store for that may step on the toes of the big folks at HQ.

 

Everyone involved has made it painfully clear that there's no reasoning with them on that particular aspect - so I've opted to give up trying so that new people can at least continue to enjoy what's left.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/20/2018 at 4:26 AM, Team Microdot said:

 

The edit - once I can make it - will take a few minutes.

 

I'm just going to pull all reference to the underwear store.

 

It means losing a logging task and not showing people a rare and fantastic looking rock but my options are limited.

I would just like to state for the record that I am wearing underwear right now.  Not only that, but I bought it at a store. There - I said it.  I know, I know, I will probably be banned and archived by a moderator now for writing that, but it had to be done.  Yes, there may be family members who could be reading this who will be shocked by this admission, but c'est la vie (or maybe c'est la guerre?)  Is it lingerie?  I don't know, it came from a store in a mall so I guess so.  My wife thinks I look sexy anyway.  

Seriously though, the person who said that a SMH icon is needed was spot on.  Every time that I read this thread for updates I just shake my head more and more.  I can just picture the parents now, hustling their children past the store whilst covering their eyes and saying "Don't look, don't look!"  At least now there won't be an earthcache there to draw their attention to the doorway.  SMH.   

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Spandoc said:

I can just picture the parents now, hustling their children past the store whilst covering their eyes and saying "Don't look, don't look!"

I always love it when people solicit their opinions on how to raise children that are not their own. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

×