Jump to content

Any else getting of the stupid placement hoops


FireCacher

Recommended Posts

Is anyone else getting tired of all the stupid hoops, and other garbage Jeremy's minions make you go through in placing a cache. I've had one cache that some minion required me to modify before approval. Several fellow cachers have quit the sport due to numerous rejections because some pinhead in cyberspace doesn't "think" the cache is a good one. Jeremy always did a fine job and still does, but these people are out of hand, the power has gone to their head.

 

What gives, this is just as much our sport as it is Jeremy's and the geocaching.com site's sport. The site needs us to place, hunt, and log caches, we need the site to place, hunt and log caches.

 

I'm probably stepping on lots of toes, but someone needs to tell the emperor he has no clothes. This is out of hand, cache placement is critical to the survival of this game, if the cache meets the rules posted on this site, then it should be approved. Who cares if the cache is 20ft, 200ft, or 2000ft from another cache? Maybe it is a cache rich area.

 

Would anyone like to address these issues or discuss this any further?

 

Are others having the same experience?

 

Or is the Central Texas Geocaching group being singled out?

 

Flame Proof suit now one.

 

Happy New Year

FireCacher icon_mad.gif

Link to comment

Well, I haven't placed any caches, so I haven't had to go through the submission process, but I've adopted three that were either abandoned or placed by out-of-town cachers. If people took a little more care and thought into placing a cache, people like me wouldn't have to clean up after them... and the cache-approvers wouldn't have to scrutinize so closely.

 

Basically, I'm in support of most hoops people have to go through to place a cache. This means less drop-and-forget caches.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

I have no problems with the rules, and I have no problems following the rules, but rules that are required but not posted or people that "think" or "feel" like the cache isn't a good one I think need to either get posted of go. How does someone is Seattle know whether the cache I posted is a good one or not?

 

Of course, it's all just a game, and we all know that many just modify the cache to get it approved then put it back. Since I haven't tried to post many, I've had no need to do this, but I know it is happening.

Link to comment

If you feel strongly that your cache submission should be approved and you can't come to an agreement then why not ask the approver to post it in "Survey Says" and have your fellow cachers critique it.

 

Cheers, Olar

 

"You are only young once but you can stay immature forever"

Link to comment

I can say that your problem hasn't been my experience. The one recent cache I placed was approved no questions asked, no problems at all within several hours.

 

I agree that if you have an issue you should post it up for survey. Sometimes what you see as an injustice may not be viewed that way by others. That goes for anything in life, not just placing a cache, and at least here you're given a venue for appeal.

 

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

 

Roger

 

Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side

Link to comment

If they are doing several at a time, I'd look very close at them as well.

 

Better the cache, the more thought and uniqueness there is to it. If they're doing several at a time what is the chance of that. My first reaction would be we got a newbie that is getting a little over anxious.

 

AZMark

Link to comment

Not sure what hoopsyour talking about but I have not had any problems that where not workable. One disaprroved but sent a note back and everthing was cleared up fine. What was the problem from your end? What type of cache where you planting? How many caches close by? How close? You should have gotten an ID # for even the disapproved cache, what was it and let us look at it and voice an opinion.

 

TTFN, logscaler.

Link to comment

I've placed 5 caches in my local area... The first one took 2 days to get approval then less and less for each cache...the 5th one was approved in 3 hours! I dont know if they alocate different areas to different people (maybe Jeremy could shed some light on this) but the person who approved ours is erik88l-r

and I think he does a great job icon_razz.gif

 

*****The other day I was playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died.*****

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by coast2coast2coast:

...but the person who approved ours is erik88l-r

and I think he does a great job icon_razz.gif


 

erik881-r does a great job. I entered a short series of caches one day and before I'd finished the first ones were already approved.

 

But then again, I'm in a cache poor area, so that probably makes it easier.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

As someone who places a lot of caches I've had a few caches that caused the approvers to pause a moment and ask questions. I've been able to clairify each one.

 

It's usually not the standards caches that get questions though. If you placed a box of trinkets in the woods, and it's not within .1 miles of another cache, it's going to get approved.

 

It's the more creative caches I've placed that caused a stir, so the statement that the approvers are trying to make sure each cache is interesting is not completely accurate. In my experience, it's my more interesting caches that are getting questioned.

 

Having said that, I have no problem with the approvers. I've been able to work with them to get questioned caches approved and they've been open to discussion. They just need things clarified once in a while.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by azmark:

If they are doing several at a time, I'd look very close at them as well.

 

Better the cache, the more thought and uniqueness there is to it. If they're doing several at a time what is the chance of that. My first reaction would be we got a newbie that is getting a little over anxious.

 

AZMark


 

There are 40000 + caches in the world, I'm sure 98% of those are boxes hidden in a bush. A box hidden in a bush is not, and should not, generally questioned by the approvers. There are some obvious exceptions, national parks, private property, etc. It is the caches that step outside the "box in the bush" catagory that generally get questions.

 

The approvers have very little way of knowing if your cache hide is unique beyond looking at a map and reading your description.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

Of course, I generally go to lengths ahead of time to be very descriptive on my cache page and have approval from the land managers for all of my caches. In fact, I'd be suprised if there was a problem as I put a lot of effort into setting up a cache up front.

 

On a similar topic, I am quite frustrated with the influx of 'toss-em-and-forget-em' caches that seem to be hitting my area lately. Too many drive-by's in my opinion. (Don't get me wrong I don't think every cache should take me on a 10 mile hike, but where do we draw the line?)

 

The only thing worse is cache owners who are border-line non-responsive...

 

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

Link to comment

The standards are far too low now.

 

quote:
I'm probably stepping on lots of toes, but someone needs to tell the emperor he has no clothes. This is out of hand, cache placement is critical to the survival of this game, if the cache meets the rules posted on this site, then it should be approved. Who cares if the cache is 20ft, 200ft, or 2000ft from another cache? Maybe it is a cache rich area.

 

If you want to find something to pick up every ten feet, join a litter patrol, because that's what 75% of caches are... dump and run garbage in nondescript locations.

 

I think more people leave the game because they have grown tired of finding the typical barely hidden box of junk.

 

[This message was edited by GeoPrincess on December 31, 2002 at 10:58 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by FireCacher:

{complaining post snipped}


Heh - how can anyone decide if you are right or wrong if all you do is whine and call people names?

 

People will take your side of the story into consideration a little more if you'd provide some facts and do less complaining.

 

Sorry if you feel you aren't whining - but when you rant like that but never give any details about the actual problem situation... that seems like whining to me. icon_smile.gif You gotta provide some situational info before it is a real complaint.

 

Having said that - the only problem I have with the "rules" for placing a cache is that they aren't all listed. I'm not talking about subjective situations... I'm talking about rules that ALL of the approvers agree on. I guess one of those rules is that no cache will be approved if within .1 of a mile of another cache. That is the standard they use - yet AFAIK that little bit of information isn't in the guidelines for placing a cache.

 

You might want to read this thread from a month ago - some of your concerns may be addressed there.

 

geobanana.gifThe Toe Pages

"Now with 50% less yuck, and 100% more color!!"

Link to comment

Of the 14 I've placed so far the only one that was questioned was a virtual, mainly because the answer to the confirming question could be found easily on the internet and I had not thought of that or checked. Once I changed the question to make it more unique and difficult, the virtual was approved immediately.

 

All of my traditional caches have been approved without a single question or "hoop" if you will. icon_biggrin.gif

 

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

Link to comment

And why is it .1 miles? Why was that number chosen? Has anyone ever lived in the mountains? The scenery changes when you move mere feet, .1 miles is an eternity when you 10,000ft up on the top of some peak. What about a chain of caches.

 

I never said they were all my problems, I said others that I know have had problems and left the sport.

 

My Chainsaw Massacre cache was questioned for being too commercial. I argued the point and eventually won.

 

It seems virtual caches like this one are questioned more often than standard box-in-a-bush caches. I have no problems with rules, and I think we've all been to caches that sucked, but someone liked it enough to take the time to build a cache, log the position and create it on this site. To each his own. I like the caches I've placed others may not, there is no way anyone can legislate what is a good or bad cache. This garbage about caches not being closer than .1 miles is just that, garbage. What's the point of a rule like that? Good cache locations are never closer than .1 mile. Ha, somebody better tell mother nature about the new rules, because I don't think she heard that one either.

 

All I'm asking is for everyone, including the "approvers" to think outside the box.

Link to comment

Ok, I read the thread mentioned above. My opinion is that the approvers are sliding down a very slippery slope. Making decisions based on what is best for the cacher (ie: pvc pipe that looks like a missle launger, 150ft from rr tracks, etc...) works both ways. If you catch them all great, but if you don't, guess who might be held liable in court for the outcome.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

Food for thought....

Link to comment

I've only had one cache questioned, and that was entirely due to HTML formatting on the page. I fixed that within minutes of the question ... and minutes later it was approved.

I'm a huge advocate of quality over quantity, and would much rather have 10 caches near me that required a long hike, or a solution to a difficult puzzle, or both, instead of 100 "drive-to-a-wide-spot-in-the-road-.09-miles-from-the-last-wide-spot-in-the-road-and-log-it" wastes of geocaching.com's space and the approvers time. And on that note, I would much prefer the approves err'd on the side of being too critical, then too lenient.

Reject away approvers! You have my full support.

 

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

Link to comment

Geoprincess Quote

 

If you want to find something to pick up every ten feet, join a litter patrol, because that's what 75% of caches are... dump and run garbage in nondescript locations.

 

I think more people leave the game because they have grown tired of finding the typical barely hidden box of junk.

 

Unquote

 

If you really find 75% of all your finds to be garbage, and therefor dissatifying, why continue? Is it that the 25% good ones are GOOD enough to make up the diffrence?

I can think of no other endeavor other than golf that you are dissapointed 75% of the time and still continue on!

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

Link to comment

Based on the comments here, I must be in the minority, so I guess it's time to rethink my interest in geocaching and go elsewhere.

 

As far as the reply about preferring caches with a 10 mile hike included on each one, count me out, I've not the time nor the desire to hike 10 miles to every cache. What about those that are physically disabled and are not able to hike 10 miles? The drive to a wide spot in the road might be the only cache they are able to seek. Does this mean they should not be allowed to play?

 

I like a mixture of caches. With very little research using only the information provided on this site, you can pick out the drive by caches and the long hike caches. The drive by caches are what got me into the sport. I've found many neat places by stopping by a quick geocache on my way home from work. I don't have time or daylight in most cases to hike 10 miles, but a 15 minute stop is doable and enjoyable.

 

It sounds to me as though those that aren't under 25, love to hike, and have nothing but time should find another sport.

 

If this is the direction of this site, then I'm be moving on to somewhere else.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by FireCacher:

Great idea for one cache, what about those that post several and get them all rejected?


 

I've never had a cache rejected or questioned. I've seen a couple of caches brought up in the forums that IMO should have been approved but weren't because they (cache placer) did not observe the set guidelines. I think a lot of the time caches are rejected because a placer doesnt spend enough time to think it out. They have a great location but just place it and then get mad when it isn't approved right off. And most of the time its there own fault, if they would have read the guidelines for for whatever type of cache they want to place BEFORE HAND they could have saved themselves a lot of time. Either through having to move a cache because its in a bad location, or by having to edit the cache page.

 

If you want to place a cache and know its "on the border" then email one of the admins. and ask them would this be ok? That way you can figure what problems there are and how to fix them BEFORE they happen. And it seems that most of time when people "didn't know" was because they havent read everything they should have (or haven't read them lately as they do change time to time).

Why are you at the admins?

They just enforce the rules not make them.

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
If you want to find something to pick up every ten feet, join a litter patrol, because that's what 75% of caches are... dump and run garbage in nondescript locations.

 

I wouldn't say it's 75% (at least around here...at least not yet), but I do see more and more like this. I guess they do serve a purpose. Some people would rather find 5 quick caches in debris strewn lots, than walk two hours to find a cache on a pristine mountain top.

 

I found one the other day in a narrow, heavily littered strip between a highway and parking lot for an industrial complex. I was able to drive right up to it and it was just a matter of which pile of garbage to look under. Had I known, I wouldn't have bothered. I just don't see the point of caches like this.

 

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" - Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

If you really find 75% of all your finds to be garbage, and therefor dissatifying, why continue? Is it that the 25% good ones are GOOD enough to make up the diffrence?


I'm not Geoprincess... and I think the 75% figure is a bit high, but my answer to this question is yes.

 

Probably half the caches I find intereste me very little, although I still get some enjoyment from using my GPS and maps. It is the rare cache that sends me to some neat location I'd never been, nor wouldn't have gone that makes up for all the lame caches. That's why I continue.

 

I'm wanting to address some of FireCachers comments... but geesh Guy, your posts are just filled with angry rants, with apparently little open-mindedness. I don't think trying to have a discussion with you would serve any purpose.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by FireCacher:

. . .

What gives, this is just as much our sport as it is Jeremy's and the geocaching.com site's sport. The site needs us to place, hunt, and log caches, we need the site to place, hunt and log caches. . . .


 

FireCacher, you don't "need" geocaching.com to place caches. Here's what you can do: Open a personal home page entitled "FireCacher's Geocaches", post your caches there, and submit your site to the well known search engines and web rings. You won't get as many visitors to your caches, but you'll likely have a lot of fun with it. Home pages are surprisingly easy to put together, even for idiots like me.

 

That being said, I have the impression that geocaching.com is reasonable in approving caches and dealing with the concerns of the geocaching community. Just my opinion. icon_smile.gif

 

FISUR

 

Rhode Island Geocaching

Link to comment

Not sure where things are heading but I must be doing things right. I would say that 90% of the caches are worth going to and 10% are trashy. And they way I think out side the box is that "well this one sucks, but let's see what the next one brings." And I think that is what keeps Red and I going, what will the next one bring

Now, as for those hoops :

 

1) What do say you supply some of the names of those who quit due to the hoops?

 

2) What where the problems you and those others had?

 

3) If you think that your view is so great that it needs a new cache every 10 feet, make it a monster size multi cache. Go down to wally world or costco and get a shopping cart full of film canisters and have at it.

 

4) If you leave the game, find the real reason why, not just what your excuse is.

 

TTFN, logscaler.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:

Having said that - the only problem I have with the "rules" for placing a cache is that they aren't all listed. I'm not talking about subjective situations... I'm talking about rules that ALL of the approvers agree on. I guess one of those rules is that no cache will be approved if within .1 of a mile of another cache. That is the standard they use - yet AFAIK that little bit of information isn't in the guidelines for placing a cache.


 

Is this a hard and fast rule? It would be nice to know for sure. We hunted a set of six caches in one city park in Wisconsin back in October, and often had only 300 feet to go to reach the next one.. but perhaps those were set before some rule came into effect. In general, I think that caches on top of one another aren't a great idea, and there's rarely a reason why you can't spread out a bit...

 

But as it happens I have a nifty spot where I really want to place a cache. It's a unique place in the area, and has some local history I've been investigating. But as the crow flies, I think it's only 300 feet from another cache. On one hand, that's pretty dadgum close. On the other, the caches wouldn't be accessible from one another unless one can fly, and they're in quite different terrain. From Cache A, you'd have no idea that the spot I want to use exists. I wish it were farther from the other cache, but I think there may be some justification for it... is the 0.1 mile rule non-negotiable? Is it hopeless to write up a proposal for it, or is anything worth a try?

Link to comment

FireCacher wrote:

quote:
This garbage about caches not being closer than .1 miles is just that, garbage. What's the point of a rule like that? Good cache locations are never closer than .1 mile. Ha, somebody better tell mother nature about the new rules, because I don't think she heard that one either.

 

This may seem like a silly question, but why would you even want to place a cache that close to an existing cache? Is that the only cool place you know of? Last time I checked .1 miles is a tad over 500 feet for crissakes. It's a big world out there; go out and find a really cool spot that no one's thought of yet. Like anything else in life good caches require some work. The effort you put into placing a cache, or lack of it, quickly becomes apparent to those who find it. And the first thing they'll notice is that you just plunked your cache down right next to an existing one. How creative is that?

sparklehorse

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I lost my mind a while back. Please email me the coords if you see it. Thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to comment

1. I've placed 3 caches and have had excellent response time and approval for each.

2.Of the 35 caches I've found so far I would say that everyone of them showed me something of interest that I'd never seen before. Some are better than others but I've not seen a bad one yet. (Reminds me of another of my favorite sports)

3. I think the PTB have gone out of their way to be accomodating. If your cache is not approved you can try to explain to the approver via email why you have bent the rules or you can put your case to the forums. The path least appreciated by me is that of the whinner.

4. That said I can see when .1 miles can be a bad rejection criteria. If the cache is on the otherside of a river or deep canyon might be one.

But the rule is there for a purpose, to keep someone from stepping all over your cache. I recently placed a cache in the same park as 2 other caches. They were all more than .1 miles apart but I emailed the other 2 cachers to see if they had a problem with another one so close. If you had a favorite spot that you picked out for a cache and someone else threw another one down next to yours, do you think that would be cool?

 

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

Link to comment

I don't know if this is a rule or not, but I recently and accidently placed a cache within a few hundred feet of another. It was approved without any questions. I found out about its proximity to the other cache from a subsequent finder.

 

I think the rule is negotiable. If there is a river, highway, or deep ravine between the caches,

or some compelling reason that the caches should be placed that close together, they will likely approve it if you explain that to them.

 

I'm not sure what kind of problems Firecacher has been running into with the approvers, but I guess they are freqent enough that he was moved to post his bitter diatribe. Since most people don't seem to share his problem with the approval process, maybe the problem is with the caches Firecacher is proposing. If he doesn't like the way things are here, there are other several geocaching websites he can move to (some where his moving there would double the number of members).

 

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" - Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment

regarding the ".1 mile rule":

quote:
Originally posted by Kite & Hawkeye:

Is this a hard and fast rule? It would be nice to know for sure. We hunted a set of six caches in one city park in Wisconsin back in October, and often had only 300 feet to go to reach the next one.. but perhaps those were set before some rule came into effect. In general, I think that caches on top of one another aren't a great idea, and there's rarely a reason why you can't spread out a bit...

 

But as it happens I have a nifty spot where I really want to place a cache. It's a unique place in the area, and has some local history I've been investigating. But as the crow flies, I think it's only 300 feet from another cache. On one hand, that's pretty dadgum close. On the other, the caches wouldn't be accessible from one another unless one can fly, and they're in quite different terrain. From Cache A, you'd have no idea that the spot I want to use exists. I wish it were farther from the other cache, but I think there may be some justification for it... is the 0.1 mile rule non-negotiable? Is it hopeless to write up a proposal for it, or is anything worth a try?


 

If it were me, when I report that cache, I would put an extra paragraph addressed to the approver, maybe bolded or in a different color, that talks about the issues you have discussed. One of the things that keeps that rule from being so "hard and fast" is terrain ... two caches 450 apart across a gorge could be 10 miles apart, travel-wise.

 

In contrast, think about a state capital. There are usually many interesting places to visit and learn within a .1 mile radius. In Austin, we have sculptures and memorials, an Emporium, a park where the Capitol stood for 5 years at one time, the Texas History Museum, the Governors' mansion ... all within a .1 mile radius, and all worth the time to plan and execute a cache. Several have been approved, and I hope a couple of my own will be in that group sometime soon. You can say there is a ".1 mile rule" but a lot of factors could allow the rule to be "bent". It is a starting place. If you have a legitimate cache then you should have enough information from your research to change the controversial wording, or to clarify how two caches close to each other could not be mistaken one for the other, or to prove its uniqueness, even to the most cautious approver.

 

I, for one, am happy that they question things. It means they are paying attention. They can't know the entire layout, topographically or geographically, of an area, or anything about the tree cover, etc. If you took all these things into consideration and can answer their questions, you shouldn't have trouble getting your cache approved.

 

I'm off to do some research! It's sunny and 55 degrees and it's a HOLIDAY! icon_biggrin.gif

 

Happy Trails!

Candy

 

quote:
... I can quit any time I like ... really, I CAN!!

 

Candy (Moosiegirl)http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralTexasGeocachers/

Link to comment

I do a similar job for a similar organization. ...evaluating and approving orienteering courses for National level competitions sometimes from 3000 miles away. It is really more difficult to evaluate a course, and I assume a cache, from in front of the computer than by seeing it in person. But often there is no other way to do it. So it becomes very important for the designer to make every effort to have a good cache, but more importantly to be able to convey that image in words to those that are checking the work. My first cache was rejected due to a lack of communication on my part. The others were approved within hours I suggest that more time spent planning and writing may increase your success rate. edscott

Link to comment

The main problem seems to be that there are standards being used to disapprove caches that are NOT POSTED anywhere on the website. The problem seems to be centered on virtuals. Some of the approvers apparently personally don't like virtuals, so they tend to have stricter standards than those that are posted.

 

ALL of the standards used to approve/disapprove caches need to be posted, and the approvers need to be more consistent. Some of the caches that have been disapproved have been rejected for some very subjective reasons.

 

I have had a few caches questioned by approvers. In every instance, they worked with me to clarify issues and modify cache descriptions, and all have been approved, eventually. Generally, the approvers do a good job. It's tough to balance the need to reduce the number of "lame caches" with the need to make cache approval as simple as possible.

 

If you can't get a cache approved at Geocaching.com, there's always N a v i c a c h e...

 

ntga_button.gifweb-lingbutton.gif

Link to comment

quote:
The problem seems to be centered on virtuals. Some of the approvers apparently personally don't like virtuals, so they tend to have stricter standards than those that are posted.

 

ALL of the standards used to approve/disapprove caches need to be posted, and the approvers need to be more consistent. Some of the caches that have been disapproved have been rejected for some very subjective reasons.

 

I have had a few caches questioned by approvers. In every instance, they worked with me to clarify issues and modify cache descriptions, and all have been approved, eventually. Generally, the approvers do a good job. It's tough to balance the need to reduce the number of "lame caches" with the need to make cache approval as simple as possible.

 

If you can't get a cache approved at Geocaching.com, there's always N a v i c a c h e...

 

http://www.ntga.nethttp://www.web-ling.com

 

evidence in proof of webling's statement

 

read this http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3350930104&m=9160913435&r=5310964435#5310964435

 

SR and dboggny.

9372_2600.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

The main problem seems to be that there are standards being used to disapprove caches that are NOT POSTED anywhere on the website. The problem seems to be centered on virtuals. Some of the approvers apparently personally don't like virtuals, so they tend to have stricter standards than those that are posted.


 

Well, it wasn't until half way through this thread that we find out the original poster was (probably) referring to virtuals. I think they need to have a stricter standard, because it's just too easy to create junk virtuals.

 

As for Navicache, I'd like to see a list sometime of caches that only appear on navicache.com and not on geocaching.com. I bet it's a really, really small list.

 

3608_1400.gif

Link to comment

First, I'd need to know the actual cache details before I can answer why your particular caches have been looked over more carefully than others.

 

Secondly, the guidelines are posted on the "report a cache" page. These guidelines have been modified many times over the course of the past year, and I find them very fair. If you see where a particular cache meets the guidelines and is not approved, contact me about it.

 

Unlike many other sites you have a voice here. If you have an issue with your cache not being approved, raise it either in the forums or to me. If you do raise it to me, don't be surprised to wait a few days for me to get to your email. Lately I've had a *lot* of emails (new geocachers with GPSr holiday presents, I suspect).

 

For the most part, a seasoned approver comes to realize that a lot of *crap* comes through on the "report a cache" page, so after a while some cynism sinks in. Frankly in the cases where there is a "suspect" listing, if you feel strongly about a particular cache you should jump through those hoops. Many approvers have come to the realization that after their cache is declined most people do not bother to defend it.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

Exactly... I love all the excuses made for not posting the rules. If it is that simple, the post the ALL the rules and move on. If it isn't that simple, then explain to me what good reasons there are for hiding the rules. Unless or course, you simply don't like virtual caches and don't want to admit it.

 

By the way I have received several personal emails from others who have read this thread, but are reluctant to post becuase of past retaliation from the approvers class. So you tell me there isn't something broken. And no I'm not going to post their names, so don't even ask. One even told me he had several of his most recent hidden caches (which were already approved) cancelled by one of the approvers. Maybe the approvers class would like to explain that to the seekers class!

Link to comment

(1) posting all the rules: Well, I guess that would be nice. The .1 mile rule would be helpful. But, I bet there are tons of unforseen things that arise and if every little thing was listed, it would get very complicated. Also, I don't think it is that hard to write the approver back and explain things. They seem like approachable and reasonable people to me. Like Jeremy said, it sounds like a lot of people don't defend their caches that are not approved.

 

(2) .1 mile away caches: I have no problem with this. It seems pretty silly to place two caches so close together. That really is a very short distance. If there is some dramatic change in secenery or some other reason why you think two close together caches would be neat, then I bet the approvers would consider it.

 

(3)

quote:
I'm looking forward to someone stepping up and starting a website where we don't have to deal with anal moderators or owners. I think the time is ripe now.


 

Well, I guess if someone wants to do that, ok. But consider this. Running and maintaining a site such as this takes a lot of work, not to mention money. If the site was successful and allowed everything and anything, it could easily get overrun. I'm no computer wiz, but my guess is that server space and administration is an issue. Also, I like to use a site that weeds out some things. for example, I don't really want to be finding commercial caches or caches placed on private land without permission. I also don't want to have to wade through posts of "lame" (I realize there is some disagreement on what is "lame") virtual and locationless caches to figure out what I want to find.

 

Anyway, this site suits my needs just fine and I am impressed by how professionally it is run. I bet I would stick with things here if another site got started and became successful. With that said, this site doesn't own geocaching, so sure, you or someone else could always try to form a site that fits your needs.

 

pokeanim3.gif

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...