Some Feedback on this Cache, Please

[+bunkerdave]

I posted the following cache this week, and it was disapproved by the approval committee.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?id=23427&LID=353423

 

I would like to get the opinions of some of my fellow Utah Geocachers on this. I have discussed such a thing at all the get-togethers, and I really thought this was a good idea.

 

Thoughts?

 

bunkerdave

[+Dan_Edwards]

Did they say why? It's seams a lot more of a tradional cache then some I seen of late.

 

I like it, but then what do I know

[+Dan_Edwards]

Did they say why? It's seams a lot more of a tradional cache then some I seen of late.

 

I like it, but then what do I know

[+gnbrotz]

Dave,

 

This sure seems like a multi-cache to me. The only deviation is everyone can choose their own steps, not follow one pre-determined set.

 

With all the silliness (IMO) going on with locationless caches, I don't see why this wasn't approved. After all, it is a REAL cache, you just need to do some work to obtain the final coords.

 

Have you asked for clarification, reconsideration, or a poll in the "Should this be posted" forum? I would support this cache as legitimate. NOT easy, but legit!

 

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

[+tslack2000]

I'm fine with it.

 

Tyler Slack's Geocaching in Utah

[+bunkerdave]

I have posted it THREE times now, and it has been disapproved each time. First the entire committee disaaproved it (in fairness, that was a true locationless cache, with no real cache out there at all, so that was ok with me) Then I placed a cache, and posted it as you see here. That was also rejected, by one member of the committee. I contacted him personally, and he said that he assumed it was the same as the first one. After he realized it was not the same, he said he apologized and should have approved it. I reposted it (again) and it has now been rejected by erik881-r as "too elitist". Here is the entire message as posted to the cache page (now archived)

 

May 25 by erik88l-r (333 found)

You can [delete] or [encrypt] this log entry.

 

dejavu?

 

I believe another admin has already archived this.

We have member only caches, but this gets a bit too elitist as only the most seasoned 'cachers would be able to participate. A visitor to the state or a newbie wouldn't have a chance of finding this cache. IMHO

 

geocaching.com admin

 

I would be interested in hearing some thought on THIS argument. I guess I will just have to re-post my cache (yet again) since we are all in agreement that this is a legitimate, worthwhile cache.

 

bunkerdave

[+gnbrotz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

 

I contacted him personally, and he said that he assumed it was the same as the first one. After he realized it was not the same, he said he apologized and should have approved it.

---

From that point, he should have had the cache un-archived, without you needing to re-post it. I thought these guys were supposed to REVIEW caches, not ASSUME them.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

 

I believe another admin has already archived this.

We have member only caches, but this gets a bit too elitist as only the most seasoned 'cachers would be able to participate. A visitor to the state or a newbie wouldn't have a chance of finding this cache. IMHO

 

geocaching.com admin

---

First of all, let me say that I support MOC. I certainly don't agree with the assertion that having to pay money to access a given cache is LESS elitest than tailoring a cache for "seasoned" cachers. Why don't we just do away with everything over about 3 stars? After all, according to the admin, we don't want to scare off the newbies! It's obvious that this admin would never have approved your Master Cache . I wonder how that one slipped through?

 

BTW...Dave, have you thought about posting this on the non-regional boards. I suspect you'd gather more support. Also, have you considered listing this cache on one of the "other" caching sites?

 

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

 

[This message was edited by gnbrotz on May 25, 2002 at 08:02 PM.]

[+gnbrotz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

 

I contacted him personally, and he said that he assumed it was the same as the first one. After he realized it was not the same, he said he apologized and should have approved it.

---

From that point, he should have had the cache un-archived, without you needing to re-post it. I thought these guys were supposed to REVIEW caches, not ASSUME them.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunkerdave:

 

I believe another admin has already archived this.

We have member only caches, but this gets a bit too elitist as only the most seasoned 'cachers would be able to participate. A visitor to the state or a newbie wouldn't have a chance of finding this cache. IMHO

 

geocaching.com admin

---

First of all, let me say that I support MOC. I certainly don't agree with the assertion that having to pay money to access a given cache is LESS elitest than tailoring a cache for "seasoned" cachers. Why don't we just do away with everything over about 3 stars? After all, according to the admin, we don't want to scare off the newbies! It's obvious that this admin would never have approved your Master Cache . I wonder how that one slipped through?

 

BTW...Dave, have you thought about posting this on the non-regional boards. I suspect you'd gather more support. Also, have you considered listing this cache on one of the "other" caching sites?

 

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

 

[This message was edited by gnbrotz on May 25, 2002 at 08:02 PM.]

[+Ramblin Rover]

Lately I have become aware of several caches that have been rejected. Nearly all by the same individual who rejected yours. It seems to me that some perameters need to be set so that reviewers cannot be so subjective (as kind a word as I can muster) in the approval process. The rationale that the cache is "too elitist" is assenine. All difficult caches are elitist then. Can it be implied that caches that require 4WD's, digital cameras, etc. are not accessible to out of town passersby or those with less skills or money and are therefore not acceptable.

 

I don't mean to sound angry, but I am frustrated that the "opinions" of unknown people in unknown places are beginning to drive a wedge into geocaching. A cache of mine was recently rejected (with some good reasoning), and I was told that a policy is being developed. My suggestion is to get it done and make it available to everyone. How can we be held to standards that are not written and not posted? Therein lies the problem.

 

Bob

[3A's&J]

We just returned from So. Cal and Nevada, they have members only caches that you and I are not allowed to even participate in. There are also womens only caches. So, I don't understand why the negative determination in this intance.

[3A's&J]

We just returned from So. Cal and Nevada, they have members only caches that you and I are not allowed to even participate in. There are also womens only caches. So, I don't understand why the negative determination in this intance.

[+kb7vml]

Bunkerdave,

 

I remember seeing this cache a while back, and thought it was a fabulous idea!!! Sure, it'll take some time... and I may never even get close to having enough caches to claim the prize, but (as a relative newbie <20 caches found) I like the idea and certainly don't feel alienated.

[Pubo]

When I go to the cache BunkerDave linked I get the following.

 

"ALERT! The cache no longer exists, whether by act of nature or other circumstance."

 

Did this cache ever see the light of day?

[RedShoesGirl]

BunkerDave,

 

You should really take this thread to the General forums - you will get much more support there.

 

What on earth is the reveiwer thinking about using his subjective criteria "too elitist"?! There have been some pretty basic rules to this game that the reviewers are supposed to follow - no National Park caches, commercial, etc. But nowhere did I see one that said too difficult or too elitist.

 

And if they were to really pay attention, then all those that are in National Parks would be archived, but many are still there.

 

This sort of thing just irritates the heck out of me. We don't need reviewers protecting us or deciding which chaches we should go for. Sheesh!

 

Contact Jeremy directly and in public on the general forum.

 

[ ]

[Yomikibagami]

I saw that cache when it first got posted. I thought that it was an awesome idea. I didn't know that they had archived it. I think that that would have been a good one to do. It would have taken me a while though since I've only done about 4 or 5 counties. Keep up the great caches Bunkerdave.