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

Not family friendly?

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, MNTA said:

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.

 

I can kind of understand that if merely for the sake of consistency. Probably better worded as promoting an agenda, or a 'call to action'.  While clearly not moral/political/commercial directly, it's unrelated to the cache, and because reviewers often under fire from people who think it's "unfair" that one person gets by and they don't, consistency is getting a bump in priority now.  We've had a few threads discussing what seem to be 'petty' denials.  So yeah, there'd be a difference between "there are a number of locations nearby where locals often buy ice cream" and "now go get some ice cream".

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Spandoc said:

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.

 

For solidarity with Team Microdot, I'm off  to an event without underwear.    

 

Seriously though.. I can understand how it can happen.   We don't know exactly what was in the complaint,  but if someone described it in colourful language, and said they had to go in the store (which isn't true), Groundspeak (and/or the reviewer) will want to get it resolved quickly.   It is easiest for them to accept the complaint rather than spend time understanding in detail and going back to the person who raised the complaint and trying to convince them to drop it.     

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

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).

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between that specific store and the mall in general in terms of calling it "go inside a business". But don't bring that up to the reviewer or the whole cache will be invalidated.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I can kind of understand that if merely for the sake of consistency.

 

I don't think consistency has anything to do with it.

 

The guidelines forbid caches in or around schools, on or around children's playgrounds and on or around electricity substations.

 

I could take you to examples of all three. In fact I could take you round a series dedicated to the third.

Edited by Team Microdot
missed a word.

Share this post


Link to post

And any stink raised about such caches which may have bene published under any other circumstances we're not privy to, could result in archival of said caches in executing (being called out on in-) consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

For solidarity with Team Microdot, I'm off  to an event without underwear.

 

I love you Mark :wub:

 

In a purely platonic, manly, brotherly sort of way of course ;)

 

22 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

Seriously though.. I can understand how it can happen.   We don't know exactly what was in the complaint,  but if someone described it in colourful language, and said they had to go in the store (which isn't true), Groundspeak (and/or the reviewer) will want to get it resolved quickly.   It is easiest for them to accept the complaint rather than spend time understanding in detail and going back to the person who raised the complaint and trying to convince them to drop it. 

 

If the most recent communication I had from Groundspeak included wording from the original complaint I'd say it was more than colourful. There's not much shocks me but I'm still reeling from that one.

 

What I'm telling myself though is that Groundspeak haven't allowed themselves to be swayed by colourful language and that their professional view is based on knowing the style and purpose of the store and of the products sold there and concluding for themselves that they consider said store not family friendly.

 

While I disagree with their assertions here I have to give them credit for, by allowing the cache to be unarchived again, taking what might be considered a balanced approach.

 

The sad thing of course is that there are no winners here - only losers.

Edited by Team Microdot
correct wording.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And any stink raised about such caches which may have bene published under any other circumstances we're not privy to, could result in archival of said caches in executing (being called out on in-) consistency.

 

Sorry bruce - I don't follow.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, dprovan said:
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

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).

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between that specific store and the mall in general in terms of calling it "go inside a business". But don't bring that up to the reviewer or the whole cache will be invalidated.

 

If you care to check the cache page now that it's available again you'll see (and I am now reminded) that I spent 18 months just thinking about HOW I could stage an EarthCache in this location that complied with commercial guidelines and thus had official blessing.

 

I couldn't really see how it would work but dialogue with the reviewer convinced me that it was possible - and so I pressed on and achieved something that gave me a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction.

 

I guess the distinction is that the mall doesn't sell anything - it just rents out premises and provides services to them.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I couldn't really see how it would work but dialogue with the reviewer convinced me that it was possible - and so I pressed on and achieved something that gave me a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction.

Well, sure, but the whole problem here is that the reviewer's mind was changed, isn't it? Anyway, I'm glad it worked out to your satisfaction. I appreciate the effort and sympathize with you for having to make it less than perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And any stink raised about such caches which may have bene published under any other circumstances we're not privy to, could result in archival of said caches in executing (being called out on in-) consistency.

 

Sorry bruce - I don't follow.

 

"Why won't you publish my cache? A guideline violation? There's another one like that over there."  ... *archived*

You could probably find multiple caches all over the place that seem to violate certain guidelines. Either they were published as an exception, or there was a reason why it doesn't violate the guideline, or it was published incorrectly/inconsistently.  Pointing it out to tptb could possibly get it archived.

It might be the sort of thing that happened here; only it resulted in a revaluation and strange rulings on it from TPTB.  But it's up again, so yay, even if slightly cut up.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Anyway, I'm glad it worked out to your satisfaction.

 

Well it didn't - not really.

 

I liked it much better as it was.

 

But I wasn't given that option. Because one person complained.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

Pointing it out to tptb could possibly get it archived.

 

But that doesn't matter.

 

The point is that those caches clearly violate the guidelines now just as they did on the day(s) they were published.

 

And that's not right.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

But I wasn't given that option. Because one person complained.

 

You may want to consider that one photo that was logged.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Harry Dolphin said:

 

You may want to consider that one photo that was logged.

 

To what end?

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I can kind of understand that if merely for the sake of consistency. Probably better worded as promoting an agenda, or a 'call to action'.  While clearly not moral/political/commercial directly, it's unrelated to the cache, and because reviewers often under fire from people who think it's "unfair" that one person gets by and they don't, consistency is getting a bump in priority now.  We've had a few threads discussing what seem to be 'petty' denials.  So yeah, there'd be a difference between "there are a number of locations nearby where locals often buy ice cream" and "now go get some ice cream".

Or, "Now I'm off to get some ice cream. "

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Pointing it out to tptb could possibly get it archived.

 

But that doesn't matter.

 

The point is that those caches clearly violate the guidelines now just as they did on the day(s) they were published.

 

And that's not right.

 

Sure it matters. My point is that for the sake of consistency, if it's discovered that something is in violation now, action may be taken if it wasn't a known exception then.

Not that that's what happened in your case (there was no violation and it was approved as is, and it doesn't seem anything has changed), which is why the end result is weird; but generally positive, only in that unarchival hasn't been denied, so it can live on, but crippled.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
7 hours ago, dprovan said:

Anyway, I'm glad it worked out to your satisfaction.

Well it didn't - not really.

I only meant you were satisfied enough to keep the EarthCache even in its bastardized form.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Sure it matters. My point is that for the sake of consistency, if it's discovered that something is in violation now, action may be taken if it wasn't a known exception then

 

The caches I mentioned earlier very much violated the guidelines on the day they were published just as much as they continue to do so today.

 

I was thinking about the concept of family friendly this morning and I can't quite wrap my head around what it means in the context of geocaching.

 

As a simple example - is a cache close to the top of a quarry face where there's a real risk of serious injury or even death family friendly?

 

It strikes me as odd that the guidlines treat these sorts of caches with very real dangers as family friendly while at the same time treating the possibility of seeing a pair of pants as something that must be stamped out at all costs 😳

Edited by Team Microdot
typo

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
11 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

You may want to consider that one photo that was logged.

  

To what end? 

Perhaps it was that photo that offended someone's sensibilities?  Although then they could've just asked you to delete it. But maybe they just complained to GS that the cache "isn't family-friendly because of that store", without even mentioning the photo in their complaint. We don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, noncentric said:

Perhaps it was that photo that offended someone's sensibilities?  Although then they could've just asked you to delete it. But maybe they just complained to GS that the cache "isn't family-friendly because of that store", without even mentioning the photo in their complaint. We don't know. 

 

Let's remember that the reviewer's requirements for unarchiving the cache had nothing to do with the so-called family friendliness.

 

Rather the issue reverted back to the fact the rock in question was inside the perimeter of the store and this - in the reviewer's opinion - violated commercial guidelines even though there was no requirement whatsoever to enter the store.

 

It was Groundspeak who cited family friendliness as their reason for archiving the cache.

 

The question of the gulf between these two reaasons remains unexplained.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

The question of the gulf between these two reaasons remains unexplained.

 

Purely speculation of course, but I'm guessing...

 

Unhappy cacher: You have to go into a shop selling ladies undergarments.
Reviewer: Have to go into the shop, eh?  Let's disable it, and find out more.
Groundspeak: Ladies undergarments?!  Exterminate!

 

;-)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

Purely speculation of course, but I'm guessing...

 

Unhappy cacher: You have to go into a shop selling ladies undergarments.
Reviewer: Have to go into the shop, eh?  Let's disable it, and find out more.
Groundspeak: Ladies undergarments?!  Exterminate!

 

;-)

 

Yes - we are all guessing because that's all we're allowed to do.

 

If the wording of Groundspeak's last communication was a reflection of UnhappyCacher's words it was rather more extreme than that.

 

I rather suspect it was laid on with a large trowel.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I was thinking about the concept of family friendly this morning and I can't quite wrap my head around what it means in the context of geocaching.

 

As a simple example - is a cache close to the top of a quarry face where there's a real risk of serious injury or even death family friendly?

 

 

Whilst I'm not sure it is defined anywhere, I believe "family friendly" is about "adult themes".   Aka sex.    There are no issues with extreme caches, and they assume cachers will use their judgements about who attempts them.   Many children are better at climbing trees than I am.  

 

I've seen issue taken with cache names which contain innuendo (though some sneak through).   

 

It is a hard one to judge.   I know of caches near naturist areas, where you may encounter people without underwear.    The naturists will tell you there is nothing sexual about it, they just prefer not to wear clothes.    If someone complains, will it get archived?   Maybe, depends on the reviewer or lacky.     Underwear is one of those grey areas (unless you use bleach).   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

There are no issues with extreme caches, and they assume cachers will use their judgements about who attempts them.

 

Yeah - that's the point.

 

Someone could fall to their death? Meh.

 

Someone might see a pair of pants? Stop at all costs!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Yeah - that's the point.

 

Someone could fall to their death? Meh.

 

Someone might see a pair of pants? Stop at all costs!

 

 

 

Yeah.. I understand it though.   They want physically challenging/extreme caches to be part of the game, to appeal to cachers who can do them and want the challenge.      They don't want adult themes, or themes which can offend to be part of it.       (Not that I think pants should offend).  

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

 

Yeah.. I understand it though.   They want physically challenging/extreme caches to be part of the game, to appeal to cachers who can do them and want the challenge.      They don't want adult themes, or themes which can offend to be part of it.       (Not that I think pants should offend).  

 

Indeed.

 

I understand it too.

 

Cache with risk of death = totally worth it

 

Cache with risk of seeing pants / subject of one complaint over the course of two years = not worth tuppence

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/22/2018 at 10:42 AM, Team Microdot said:

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).

 

The only mistake was not placing the cache in an area where all 3 of the above can be recommended by the CO in the cache description, and there's still a decent chance it will be published.  But that's another thread here somewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, ecanderson said:

The only mistake was not placing the cache in an area where all 3 of the above can be recommended by the CO in the cache description, and there's still a decent chance it will be published.  But that's another thread here somewhere. 

 

I assume you're alluding to reviewers seemingly ignoring guidelines completely?

Share this post


Link to post

"Suggests" and "Recommends" are close enough in meaning as to be synonymous for listing guideline purposes.  So, as a reviewer, I would require the removal of language such as "after admiring the pretty rocks in the floor, why not pop inside to browse through some frilly undies?"

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't expect I'd look good in frilly undies, but appreciate that you'd do the right thing, Keystone!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Keystone said:

"Suggests" and "Recommends" are close enough in meaning as to be synonymous for listing guideline purposes.  So, as a reviewer, I would require the removal of language such as "after admiring the pretty rocks in the floor, why not pop inside to browse through some frilly undies?" 

 

I think the post you're responding to suggests not all reviewers would follow your chosen course of action.

 

ETA - it also seems that there are places where a person can go beyond suggestion (which itself is very subjective and can be interpreted to suit particular agendas) all the way to recommendation and still have the cache published.

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot
Afterthought

Share this post


Link to post

Went shopping today.

 

Took a photograph to show how there's absolutely no need to enter the store to see the rock.

 

 

 

 

20181124_140430b.jpg

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, The_Incredibles_ said:

Doesn't look like they're selling anything particularly sexy. I would totally take my kids into that store.

 

Yep.

 

I really have to wonder why Groundspeak chose to archive it in the first place on the basis of a single, probably highly exaggerated complaint.

 

Really sucks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Yep.

 

I really have to wonder why Groundspeak chose to archive it in the first place on the basis of a single, probably highly exaggerated complaint.

 

Really sucks.

 

Yes, especially when you put so much work into something. It sucks when someone just comes along and ruins it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I really have to wonder why Groundspeak chose to archive it in the first place on the basis of a single, probably highly exaggerated complaint.

The customer's always right. You're just a CO, so you're always wrong.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, dprovan said:
11 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I really have to wonder why Groundspeak chose to archive it in the first place on the basis of a single, probably highly exaggerated complaint.

The customer's always right. You're just a CO, so you're always wrong.

 

Unless you're placing a cache where there's a real danger of life-changing injuries or even death - and then the sky is the limit.

 

The real test would be to leave a pair of pants at such a cache and see if it gets archived or not.

 

Kinda' like irresistable force meets immovable object or fixing a piece of toast buttered side up to the back of a cat to test which way up it lands.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/21/2018 at 4:18 AM, 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.

There used to be a NANO cache here in Canberra outside a brothel, attached to the nipple of a metal sculpture of a naked woman.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There used to be a NANO cache here in Canberra outside a brothel, attached to the nipple of a metal sculpture of a naked woman.

 

Was it easier to spot when the weather was cold?

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Was it easier to spot when the weather was cold?

On observation it did stand out from the other nipple.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/23/2018 at 5:45 AM, Team Microdot said:

The guidelines forbid caches in or around schools, on or around children's playgrounds and on or around electricity substations.

They do! Then why are caches in children's playgrounds (usually being put out by beginners who think it's nice to find a cache when you take your children to a playground 🙄) still being published in Australia? They shouldn't be.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

They do! Then why are caches in children's playgrounds (usually being put out by beginners who think it's nice to find a cache when you take your children to a playground 🙄) still being published in Australia? They shouldn't be.

 

I've seen them put out by middle-aged men. One even highlights the particular playground being aimed specifically at younger children.

Share this post


Link to post

Conversation appears to be straying off topic. Can we get back to why the original Listing was Archived then Unarchived, or have we pretty much exhausted that topic?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Conversation appears to be straying off topic. Can we get back to why the original Listing was Archived then Unarchived, or have we pretty much exhausted that topic?

 

Caches which very obviously contravene the guidelines when published and are allowed to persist while caches which don't contravene any guidelines are unceremoniously archived is very much on topic thanks.

 

ETA especially when the caches an question are on or around children's playgrounds.

Edited by Team Microdot
Addition

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I'm confused then.  The title of the topic is "Not family friendly?", yet we're discussing playgrounds now.

 

If the topic has been broadened to include ALL potential Guideline conflicts with existing Listings, perhaps one of the Mods can change the title to reflect this all encompassing thread to make it sound less restrictive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

I guess I'm confused then.  The title of the topic is "Not family friendly?", yet we're discussing playgrounds now.

 

If the topic has been broadened to include ALL potential Guideline conflicts with existing Listings, perhaps one of the Mods can change the title to reflect this all encompassing thread to make it sound less restrictive.

 

I'm confused too, about your apparent compulsion to self-appoint as moderator of this thread, but on the subject of your confusion I'll try to help.

 

The title of the thread is 'Not family friendly'. It need not convey the entire content of the thread and nor could it. To expect that is to be disappointed.

 

The cache was archived on the basis of a claim that the cache was not family friendly, which I disagree with.

 

I claim that caches on or around playgrounds are definitely not family friendly and that that is the most likely reason that Groundspeak guidelines explicitly forbid them.

 

Yet those caches are published and allowed to persist and I cannot help but wonder how and why that's allowed to happen, especially when a cache outside a store with an international high street presence is forcibly archived.

 

I hope that helps with clarity.

Edited by Team Microdot
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

The real test would be to leave a pair of pants at such a cache and see if it gets archived or not.

 

 

 

I own a cache which I placed underpants in.   Two pairs of new ones.   They are women's, only because they were the cheapest I could find.   They are meant to remain in the cache as they are part of the theme (but if someone wants to trade for them, no issue).     In fact the cache description mentions "underpants" 10 times.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, redsox_mark said:

 

I own a cache which I placed underpants in.   Two pairs of new ones.   They are women's, only because they were the cheapest I could find.   They are meant to remain in the cache as they are part of the theme (but if someone wants to trade for them, no issue).     In fact the cache description mentions "underpants" 10 times.   

 

 

 

I'd have kept that quiet if I were you.

 

I expect that one will now set alarm bells ringing in HQ.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I claim that caches on or around playgrounds are definitely not family friendly and that that is the most likely reason that Groundspeak guidelines explicitly forbid them

Since you seem to be the self appointed Reviewing expert in the thread, maybe you could show me where that is stated?

 

Playgrounds not family friendly?  That's a good one :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

You've misread or deliberately misunderstood what I wrote.

 

I'm sure you can find the relevant guideline for yourself. 

Share this post


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

×