My Cache Denied For Not Logging Online!

[+res2100]

over a month is too long for a new log book.

 

A little off topic, but this comment really made me wonder...What about all those caches that are unavailable for 2, 3, 6 months and much more and in desperate need of maintenance. Why not archive them all? Why are there double standards. From what I have seen, certain people get picked up. Let Team 360 play the game the way he wants to...as long as it is not harmful to anyone else. We all enjoy this game in our own way.

[+Mopar]

By this logic then, we don't even NEED cache reviewers. I mean, you also agree that you aren't gonna hide a cache "near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings and airports", yet we know from these threads that Team 360 also submitted (and had declined) one recently inside an airport. So it seems that agreement means little to him.  It's certainly not limited to him, either. Anyone who's been around has seen many cases where cachers have hid caches that go against the guidelines then come here complaining when it's not approved. For every 1 of those, there are probably 25 more who realize their mistake and fix it instead of complaining.

First, I was not aware or the "no-airport" rule when I placed that cache. I really wasn't. I had not re-read the updated guidelines about that. That's my fault, really, but the cache has been removed, so that's a non-issue right now.

 

Secondly, I am tired of hearing about people saying it's "complaining" in the forums when they bring an issue in here. That's what the Forums are for! It's a GC.com guideline to post here in the Forums, not "complaining".

I really didn't want to make you the example, but it fit. By all accounts you are a decent hider, yet the guidelines haven't changed in quite some time now, and by your own admission, you checked off that you read the guidelines when in truth you did not. I'm not trying to flame you for that, just make the point that you are not alone in that aspect. If all caches were automatically listed based on the premise that since the hider agreed to the guidelines, it HAS to conform would lead to many caches being placed on RR's, in banned parks, or without a permit in parks that require it. CR's idea that they be self-policed is Utopian, we already know it doesn't work in the real world. There are plenty of caches out there now that should be archived, but nobody wants to be the "tattletale" or "spoilsport" that "ruins it for everyone else". I remember one local cache that was buried. Cachers were totally trashing the area trying to find it. Yet even after someone finally found it, nobody said a peep until all the other regulars had a chance to find it too. I know of one multi out west that ends in a NPS. It was placed well after the NPS ban, and the hider knows it. All the finders know it. Yet nobody says a thing.

 

It's one thing to comie to the forums to discuss something grey area, subjective, or clearly wrong.

 

If you hide a cache in an airport after agreeing not to do so, then post a thread saying your airport cache was wrongfully denied, it's complaining.

 

If you hide a cache in a banned park and post a thread when it doesnt get approved, that's complaining.

 

If you list a virtual for a nice sunset and post in the forums about it not getting approved, that's complaining.

 

We get lots of complaining here.

Edited July 5, 2004 by Mopar

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

By this logic then, we don't even NEED cache reviewers.

This is interesting. I'm sure one of the reviewers can answer this curious question: what's the precentage of caches that get approved without any modification?

 

If it's significant enough, then is there really a need for "approvers?" Leave it as "reviewer" and put a "report this cache" button on the cache page. Let the cache be approved automatically and let us decide if it's a viable cache or not. Then the "reviewer's" work load would drop to queries of viability and those caches that people report as questionable.

 

Besides, aren't many caches which are shot down already placed anyway? If they are, if the cache is denied they still have to be retrieved if they are not to be hunted. No difference either way.

 

This would go a long way to giving the perception the sport is controled by a few individuals.

 

Just a thought.

 

Good thought.

 

Also, maybe another good idea would be to have a program set up that would have all of the known areas that caches cannot normally be placed, so a flag would be placed on that particular cache for a reviewer to actually look at & read the notes attached to make a judgment.

 

I agree that most caches would not even need a reviewer ever wasting their time looking over & that we, as the cache family, could tell if there were any issues & have a special button saying 'There is an issue, needs reviewed' might suffice.

 

The approvers have way to much of a load now. The perfect example: (CO Admin has Co. & AZ. to cover) ((have you noticed how large those two states are?)) & with the way Geocaching is growing, it is just going to keep getting even more of a strain on anyone to sift through all the submittal. KA even admits to this in a couple of other threads. I personally, would not want the job unless it was a little more automated.

 

Automated programs have saved tons of time elsewhere....maybe one of our own cacher family could come up with a user friendly program that would save a lot of time & effort & headaches for everyone involved.

 

Lets not just keep rehashing the old ways, lets try to solve some of the issues this whole incident has brought to light.

 

Just another musing from the female side of 2oldfarts.

 

Shirley~

[+mtn-man]

I have a few points to add here.

 

I thought when you placed a cache you clicked a button that says you can maintain this cache. If the button is clicked then where is the problem? If the owner has had no maintenance problems in the past there is no reason to doubt his ability to do so now.

First, I was not aware or the "no-airport" rule when I placed that cache. I really wasn't. I had not re-read the updated guidelines about that. That's my fault, really, but the cache has been removed, so that's a non-issue right now.

There is a good example of the problem right there from what many would consider a responsible cacher. The Team clicked the box that said they read the guidelines, but they obviously by their own admission did not do that. Just clicking the button at the bottom doesn't mean they have taken all the steps required when they clicked it. Mopar is right -- Team 360 is far from the only one to do it, but it is a perfect example right in this topic.

 

Rockhounders, you could not automate this process. Ohio is a perfect example. There are many parks there that are hard to define and it takes some serious research to make sure a cache is not approved in a banned area. Exact shapefiles would have to be developed for every single banned area in the world or an automated process would not know a banned area from a perfectly fine area. Who is going to do that? Private property with permission would be another problem. I could go on and on and on. The human touch is a must because of the nuances of this process.

 

CR, that is an impossible question for anyone to answer accurately. Reviewers only know what they have done and I would be certain that this would vary from reviewer to reviewer. Site admins would have to set up some sort of query, and I would prefer that they spend their time on more productive things. Mine personally is about 90 percent + either perfect on the first review or unapprovable. Maybe 5 to 10 percent need something done to them, be it minor or major.

 

Lastly, if bringing an issue like this to the forums is not a complaint, then what is it? Team 360, did you happen to write to the contact address first? The forum title with the exclaimation point "screams" "complaint topic".

[+mtn-man]

over a month is too long for a new log book.

 

A little off topic, but this comment really made me wonder...What about all those caches that are unavailable for 2, 3, 6 months and much more and in desperate need of maintenance. Why not archive them all? Why are there double standards. From what I have seen, certain people get picked up. Let Team 360 play the game the way he wants to...as long as it is not harmful to anyone else. We all enjoy this game in our own way.

If you know of caches that are in need of work that are not being maintained properly, then as a responsible cacher you should either be proactive and help by assisting to fix the cache or report them via a "should be archived" note. We cannot look at all caches across the country. The mechanism is there so please use it. Broad complaints here is not helping to solve the problem.

 

By the way -- yes, your post is off topic. Please stay on topic.

 

Getting back on topic, a quick look back at the "should be archived" notes for the last few days shows that just because you click the button at the bottom doesn't mean you will maintain your cache.

 

7/1 there were 16 reports.

7/2 there were 10 reports.

7/3 there were 10 reports.

7/4 there were 16 reports.

So far today there have been 6 reports, and it isn't even noon yet here.

 

It would be great if the "should be archived" report was not needed wouldn't it.

[CoyoteRed]

Rockhounders, you could not automate this process. ...

 

CR, that is an impossible question for anyone to answer accurately. ...

While I understand you couldn't completely automate an "approval" system you can provide a way for the community to be self-policing and still free up volunteers' time.

 

Let's get back to the idea that the majority of caches are actually placed before submission (supposed to be, anyways.) So when someone makes a mistake the deed is actually already done--the cache is in place. The only issue it getting it "approved" here.

 

Now, with a system that automatically "approves" the cache, regardless of where it is (obviously it would be trivial to flag a cache if it's within a certain distance of another cache, etc.) if no one ever clicks on "Report This Cache" button, then a "reviewer" never needs to even look at it.

 

However, if someone does question the cache, a reviewer only then has to look at it and make a decision. If it's not a viable cache, it's archived. The cache then needs to be retrieved just like an unapproved cache is today. If it is a viable cache then the cache is flagged as good and the "Report This Cache" button goes away. Of course, the SBA option is still there as a different mechanism.

 

To further "automate" the system, users are flagged as users who seem to place good safe caches. Those who push the envelope are flagged as such while those who have placed bad caches are flagged differently. "Good" placers have their caches listed immediately. Innovators have their caches flagged for attention by approvers though still listed. "Bad" placers must have their cache reviewed before listing.

 

Those reporting a bad cache must list why and those who abuse the system have their ability to report a bad cache taken away. New users can't report a cache for 30 days. Simple abuse reduction that will eliminate the vast majority of abuse.

 

This IMHO would make much better use of volunteers' time and have that benefit I've mentioned earlier.

[+mtn-man]

Now, with a system that automatically "approves" the cache, regardless of where it is (obviously it would be trivial to flag a cache if it's within a certain distance of another cache, etc.) if no one ever clicks on "Report This Cache" button, then a "reviewer" never needs to even look at it.

And approve the "White House Tour Cache"? I can just see the description on that one.

 

"While on vacation for my first and only trip to Washington DC that I won from a radio contest, I decided to place a cache. I didn't like DC that much so I never plan to come back. But since I went on the White House Tour I won from the contest, I decided to place a cache while the guards and the Secret Service people were not looking. You will have to be very careful as you look for this cache so no one notices because of where I placed it. I didn't have my GPS with me since they would not let me use it, so my coordinates are approximate. Let's just say that the cache is near an office that is not round or square. It was sort of oval shaped. The cache is shaped like a galvanized pipe with screw caps on the end for easy geocacher access. Have fun with my cache!"

 

Yeah, auto-approval would be interesting wouldn't it.

We should approve that and wait for it to be reported I guess?

[+TEAM 360]

There is a good example of the problem right there from what many would consider a responsible cacher.  The Team clicked the box that said they read the guidelines, but they obviously by their own admission did not do that.

Well, I HAVE read the guidelines, but no, I don't make it a point to continually review them before placing every cache...I would bet that is the case with 99% of everyone who clicks that "submit" button...

 

And yes, that is my fault, I admit it, I should keep up with the ch-ch-ch-changes!

 

Well, anyways, the cache mentioned at the top of this thread does not look like it will be approved (at least on this site, I still can list it elsewhere), so it's time to move on from this topic.

 

I think that rather than submit any more caches, I will re-activate some of my archived ones, and become more of a seeker than a hider. Not as many rules apply to the ones who seek, and less rules is a good thing, IMHO.

 

Many good responses in this thread, and many more issues to be addressed, for sure. Seems like the approvers might be overloaded. What can be done? An approver in every state? An automated approval program? Local cachers contacted to actually "check out the cache" before it can be listed? Will a mileage limitation rule be implemented to keep caches closer to the owner?

 

Many more issues to be addressed... this thread has run its course, I believe, and should be done with. Thank you all for your input on this one.