Dis-approved Cache

[+Msfarmers]

I live in Central MS. My parents are retired in Central Arkansas, I visit them regularly. On my last visit, I place a new cache box 2.5 miles from their house, my dad is an outdoor person and agreed to check on this cache regularly, He finds the whole deal facinating. He went with me to place the cache.

 

However, once I placed the cache and logged on to set the cordinates, it was Dis approved since I do not live near it. I Find this very strange given the circumstances of where this cache is located, and that I do have someone to maintain it, and I do visit the area frequently.

 

What is the process for appeal?

[+Cache Viking]

This is definately not the process for an appeal. Since it appears you have received an email indicating that it was not approved then you should communicate with the approver who sent the email to see if you can work it out.

[+El Diablo]

I think if you send a note to your approver explaining what you just have, maybe you can work something out. There is a place when you submit a cache to write notes to the approver. Did you?

 

El Diablo

[+captnemo]

Email the approver whose name is at the bottom of the disaproved cache with the reasons why you feel it should be OKed.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Look on the bottom of the cache page and see who the approver was. You might try E-mailing him for some assistance.

 

An easier solution might be to have your dad get an account and have him submit the cache, since he will be the one doing the maintenance, why not have him listed as the owner?

 

Just something to ponder.

 

John

[+woof n lulu]

As was said above, contact the approver listed on the bottom of the page.

In the future if you have any questions on placing a cache, you can email the local admin, and wait for his/her input. Or if you are brave, ask some of the cachers in the forums for advise...

[Keystone]

I just checked your archived cache submission. Absolutely none of the information contained in your forum post, above, was included with your cache submission. You think the reviewers have ESP? All we could tell is that the cache is about 250 miles from your normal caching area.

 

The information in your original forum post should have been included in a "Note to Reviewer" so that the reviewer would be able to take it into account. The reviewer may then have asked you to edit your cache page to describe how the cache would be maintained.

 

All of this is covered in the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines and this link will take you directly to the section about caches placed while on vacation or outside of your maintainable distance. Specifically, the guidelines state as follows:

 

If you have special circumstances, please describe these on your cache page or in a note to the approver.  For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page.

 

Before you submitted your cache report, you were required to check a box saying that you had read these guidelines. I fail to see what is unclear about this section of the guidelines.

[+CO Admin]

Tips to getting your cache approved.

 

Most important of all: Communication is the BEST way to get your cache approved.

 

In no particular order.

 

Most important of all: Communication is the BEST way to get your cache approved.

 

1: ALWAYS ALWAYS include the cache URL or GC waypoint number when e-mailing about your cache. If you don’t, the first thing you are going to get is an e-mail from the approver asking for this information. We have too many caches we are dealing with to remember who you are and which is your cache.

 

<SNIP>

Most important of all: Communication is the BEST way to get your cache approved.

 

<SNIP>

Most important of all: Communication is the BEST way to get your cache approved.

 

8: If your cache is rejected e-mail the approver and respond to the note you received from them. Explain why you think your cache should be approved. Quote the guidelines where possible. Above all remember that the approver is NOT out to “get” you. They are doing a job that is time consuming and difficult to do ( I and the other approvers get no joy from having to archive a cache that someone put a lot of though and work into, just because it does not meet the guidelines. We WANT to approve caches.

 

Most important of all: Communication is the BEST way to get your cache approved.

 

These are basic suggestions. All have been taken from the guidelines. Common sense is very important. When in doubt Communicate!

[+JMBella]

Tips to getting your cache approved.

 

Most important of all: Communication is the BEST way to get your cache approved.

 

In no particular order.

 

Most important of all: Communication is the BEST way to get your cache approved.

 

1: ALWAYS ALWAYS include the cache URL or GC waypoint number when e-mailing about your cache. If you don’t, the first thing you are going to get is an e-mail from the approver asking for this information. We have too many caches we are dealing with to remember who you are and which is your cache.

 

<SNIP>

Most important of all: Communication is the BEST way to get your cache approved.

 

<SNIP>

Most important of all: Communication is the BEST way to get your cache approved.

 

8: If your cache is rejected e-mail the approver and respond to the note you received from them. Explain why you think your cache should be approved. Quote the guidelines where possible. Above all remember that the approver is NOT out to “get” you. They are doing a job that is time consuming and difficult to do ( I and the other approvers get no joy from having to archive a cache that someone put a lot of though and work into, just because it does not meet the guidelines. We WANT to approve caches.

 

Most important of all: Communication is the BEST way to get your cache approved.

 

These are basic suggestions. All have been taken from the guidelines. Common sense is very important. When in doubt Communicate!

So what your saying is, if your cache isn't approved, don't communicate with the reviewer, but start a thread in the forums complaining about it. Does that about sum it up?

[+El Diablo]

Msfarmers please don't take the replies as too harsh. You actually brought up a point that a lot of people can learn from. As Keystone and CO both pointed out, communication is the key.

 

The approvers are here to help you. If you communicate with them, they will bend over backwards to help you get your cache approved. They are cachers just like you and me, and you will never meet a finer group of people.

 

El Diablo

Edited May 17, 2004 by El Diablo

[+Renegade Knight]

Was the reason why ever explained either by email or by a cache note? Most of the people who come into the forums wondering why their cache was rejected really don't know why. That darned communictations thing may have been able to avoid the whole thread.

Edited May 17, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[Keystone]

Was the reason why ever explained either by email or by a cache note? Most of the people who come into the forums wondering why their cache was rejected really don't know why. That darned communictations thing may have been able to avoid the whole thread.

Yes the cache owner received a note explaining that the vacation/maintainable distance rule was the basis for the cache being archived. The note included a link to the relevant section of the Guidelines, and also contained instructions for replying to the reviewer who looked at the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Yes the cache owner received a note explaining that the vacation/maintainable distance rule was the basis for the cache being archived. The note included a link to the relevant section of the Guidelines, and also contained instructions for replying to the reviewer who looked at the cache.

Thanks,

 

It makes you wonder:

 

Most all of the threads on disapprovals have an approver note that was overlooked. Very often the cache owner has sent emails that were not answered.

 

Strange.

[Keystone]

Since my earlier posts I've learned that correspondence HAD been exchanged between the cache owner and reviewer via e-mail. It is relevant to the discussion but I did not see it when I first looked at the cache page. I apologize for any confusion and at this time I will let the cache owner and the reviewer who were directly involved with this cache do the posting!

[+CO Admin]

Since my earlier posts I've learned that correspondence HAD been exchanged between the cache owner and reviewer via e-mail.  It is relevant to the discussion but I did not see it when I first looked at the cache page.  I apologize for any confusion and at this time I will let the cache owner and the reviewer who were directly involved with this cache do the posting!

Which is still a matter of communication. If you post something to the forums for help or evaluation by your peers, posting all the communication between you and the other person is helpful to all that read the post.

Edited May 17, 2004 by CO Admin

[Max Cacher]

I would like to say up front it was I that suggested that they bring this to the forums with this statement after they asked what the review process was:

 

“Post it to the forums in Geocaching Topics something new may come to light or/and If you ever feel that you are not getting the level of service you should be from the reviewers simply e-mail; APPROVERS@GEOCECHING.COM with your concerns.

This e-mail address is only for reporting concerns regarding Cache reviewers and Forum Moderators “

 

Posted all emails to the cache page for TPTB to view and asked the cache owner if they were correct.

 

These are the reason that I archived their cache and would not approve:

 

( 1 ) 250 plus miles from his normal caching area

( 2 ) Has 16 finds and only one in the state where he placed the one in question

( 3 )Has not found a cache scene March 2003 well over a year ago.

( 4 )Has placed two caches in the state where he lives

( 5 ) November 29, 2002 was the last time they found a cache in the state that the new one was placed in.

 

As a reviewer there is a certain amount of a judgment call even on a busy weekend of reviewing caches. Even though we as reviewers we do have limited superpowers we can not see the last time they were on the site before placing a cache. I saw no need to debate all of the points above, and did not mention some of them in the archival notes.

 

Tennessee Geocacher

Geocaching.com Reviewer // Moderator

[+sbell111]

...

These are the reason that I archived their cache and would not approve:

 

( 1 ) 250 plus miles from his normal caching area

( 2 ) Has 16 finds and only one in the state where he placed the one in question 

( 3 )Has not found a cache scene March 2003 well over a year ago.

( 4 )Has placed two caches in the state where he lives

( 5 ) November 29, 2002 was the last time they found a cache in the state that the new one was placed in.

 

...

I can understand your first reason, but not the rest.

 

The number of caches that a person has found has never been a limiting factor as to whether that person can hide a cache. After all, you placed your first caches before you had found very many.

 

Sure, he hasn't posted finds in the last year, but is this a limiting factor? After all, its his dad that is maintaining the cache. Also, perhaps he just hasn't been logging his finds online. Many do this for various reasons.

 

What difference does it make how many caches he has posted in his home area. You own many caches. I assume that there is no limit.

 

I don't see why it matters when he last posted a find in the area his father lives in, as long as his father has agreed to maintain the cache.

 

Assuming that it is still acceptable to place vacation caches if a local has agreed to maintain them, shouldn't this cache be approved?

Edited May 17, 2004 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

...These are the reason that I archived their cache and would not approve:

 

( 1 ) 250 plus miles from his normal caching area

( 2 ) Has 16 finds and only one in the state where he placed the one in question 

( 3 )Has not found a cache scene March 2003 well over a year ago.

( 4 )Has placed two caches in the state where he lives

( 5 ) November 29, 2002 was the last time they found a cache in the state that the new one was placed in.

 

As a reviewer there is a certain amount of a judgment call even on a busy weekend of reviewing caches....

Now I'm really confused.

 

According to his profile page, he has 16 finds. Five of these were in February 2004.

 

He has placed two caches in his home state. He archived the first due to logging in the area. He recently reincarnated this one as a multi. Both have been well received.

 

I'm also concerned about your 'judgement call' comment. In my opinion, disapprovals should be made based on established guidelines, not personal judgement. My understanding is that vacation caches can be approved if a local is going to maintain them.

 

Is there some other guideline that would cause this cache to be denied?

Edited May 17, 2004 by sbell111

[+Doggiewoggie]

If you don't get a cache approved, don't take it personally--it happens to a lot of dedicated and passionate cachers, and it's just part of the drill. Approvers are trying hard to keep the quality of the game good--to keep us from frittering away our lives looking for boring, stupid virts, or soppy, junk-filled, AWOL traditionals. For the sake of the game, I'd rather have it be harder to place a cache, than easier--even if it means my caches should get painfully archived in the process

[+sbell111]

I completely agree. Any caches that do not meet the guidelines should be disallowed. All caches that do meet them should be approved, however.

[+hedberg]

I would just like to say; Don't blame the reviewers, they do an excellent job without getting paid for it.

 

If they turn down your new cache, ask them the following questions:

 

1) What did I do wrong?

 

2) How can I change my cache so you could approve it?

 

3) Do you have any ideas about my cache?

 

I have done this many times with the reviewers, and it seems like they are happy to help and sometimes even suprised when I contact them in advance about new cache ideas.

[+SixDogTeam]

I think the approvers should be given wide lattitude (no pun intended) in cache approval, especially for out of state owned caches. We have many caches in our area owned by out of state cachers, two of whose parents live in the area, and despite repeated logged promises, they are only sporadically(Is that a word?), if ever maintained... We also have prolific hiders locally that don't maintain or archive MIA caches. It's our opinion that it's better to err on the side of caution in this matter.

[+bons]

I'm also concerned about your 'judgement call' comment.  In my opinion, disapprovals should be made based on established guidelines, not personal judgement.  My understanding is that vacation caches can be approved if a local is going to maintain them.

The key word here is "can". It doesn't say "will".

 

In this case the established guidelines "no vacation caches" are exactly what's being followed and reasons are given for not granting an exception to the established guidelines.

 

I don't see any reason why an exception to the "no vacation caches" rule should be made in this case.

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

... once I placed the cache and logged on to set the cordinates, it was Dis approved....

I don't know about everyone else, but I like getting the notice that my cache has been Dis-approved. I can just see KA, Hemlock, CO Admin and all the others right now...

 

"Dis one's approved. Dat one's approved. Dis approved, dat approved, dis approved, dat approved..."

 

Don't blame the reviewers. They work hard (without getting paid) trying to approve caches. If possable, just do what I have done: make the corrections needed and resubmit it. If you still have issues communicate with your approver and find a solution that way.

[MOCKBA]

The "What to do if your cache is not approved" section in FAQ may have to be expanded a bit, and it would be great if a standart reviewer e-mail to owner should include more how-to's too (or at least a link to the FAQ section):

- it needs to explain that the description is not deleted, and that the owner can still access the cache page and re-use the info. Suprisingly large number of cachers get emotional because they think that all their work is lost.

- it needs to explain what to do if an approver doesn't respond to communication. E.g. how to check is your approver has gone on a camping trip?

- it wouldn't hurt to explain that while appealing to the forums is likely to get you attention and advice, it is also extremely likely to get you not-too-relevant and too emotional replies, and thus you should be prepared to sift through the flak in search of meaningful info.

[+CO Admin]

The "What to do if your cache is not approved" section in FAQ may have to be expanded a bit, and it would be great if a standart reviewer e-mail to owner should include more how-to's too (or at least a link to the FAQ section):

- it needs to explain that the description is not deleted, and that the owner can still access the cache page and re-use the info. Suprisingly large number of cachers get emotional because they think that all their work is lost.

- it needs to explain what to do if an approver doesn't respond to communication. E.g. how to check is your approver has gone on a camping trip?

- it wouldn't hurt to explain that while appealing to the forums is likely to get you attention and advice, it is also extremely likely to get you not-too-relevant and too emotional replies, and thus you should be prepared to sift through the flak in search of meaningful info.

I have to disagree. One of the most common requests I get is to "delete" a cache. If this is one of the most common requests I find it hard to believe that "Suprisingly large number of cachers get emotional because they think that all their work is lost." In fact I was suprised to read that bit of info. In all the caches I have not approved I have not once had an owner say anything about a cache having been "deleted" and all their work lost. Sounds more llike a minority than a "Suprisingly large number of cachers"

[+hedberg]

I disagree about out-of-state (or out-of-country) caches. There is a lot of caches that are placed by people living nearby, but they don't take care of their caches either. So according to my opinion can't we say that a cache owned by a person living nearby will be in better shape than a cache owned by a person living far away. The person living nearby perhaps just place a few caches, then change hotmail address and quit geocaching.

[MOCKBA]

In all the caches I have not approved I have not once had an owner say anything about a cache having been "deleted" and all their work lost.

OK, just to qualify. I didn't poll. At first I suspected that I was the only brain-dead moron who no longer saw a rejected cache on one's list of caches, and assumed it was deleted. Later I found more people complaining about the same. Most recently, one gal was explaining that she was on a weekend trip and when she was back, there were two rejection notices on her virts which required a lot of historical research and write-up. She was, like, I would convert them to offset trads, but when I looked, my cache pages were no longer there! How could Groundspeak delete the results of this hard work without giving the owners' a chance to review and modify it! Couldn't they have waited for at least a few more days before deleting the stuff!

Now of course nobody would contact you with these concerns. Because deleted is deleted, gone is gone is gone, what use would it make to vent after the fact? And so people just take their mistaken frustration with them.

But even of only a clueless minority has this misperception, it would still be great to address the issue in the rejection e-mail. Seriously. Even relatively few people, times a lot of anguish = an issue.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The key word here is "can". It doesn't say "will". ...

I getting traditional caches approved I have never encountered a spot in the rules where the word 'should' was ever intrepreted as anything other than 'must'. There is only one reviewer who ever approved a cache that was outside the guidelines but well within the spirit of the game the guidelines were meant to protect.

 

The entire take on a vacation cache is the maintance issue. If that's covered the cache is approvable per the rules, provided you are willing to divulge the names of the people maintaining the cache for you. Other issues relating to activity on the GC.com site, the number of finds, whether or not the person has other caches placed or found in the state have no relevance (except to determin if the question on maintenance should be asked) to an approval once maintenance is covered.