Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Dick & Song Bug

Virtuals Approved By World Wide Consensus

Recommended Posts

Please refer to GCM3NF, "Tom Till's Photograph". Listed guidelines for a Virtual cache say it must be unique and compelling, this cache is both. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say a consensus of approvers worldwide need to approve it. Nowhere does it mention "WOW". This is sight is WOW, UNIQUE and COMPELLING. Note that the approver says that there are other caches in area like ours, where are they? There are none at all in all the world like this, this site is unique.

 

If volunteer approvers keep making their own rules where do the search engines, us, get their guides for placing caches? Without the cache hiders the volunteer would be out of a "job". So in the long run the approvers are getting paid exactly the right amount for the quality of work they do, little and incorrectly.

 

The following is UTAHADMIN's reason for not approving.

 

Virtual caches currently a very touchy issue at geocaching. They are only approved in extremely rare conditions. It must be in a location where a physical cache is not possible and it must have a "Wow" factor as determined by a consensus of the reviewers worldwide. Please review the published Guidelines for Virtual Caches at: (visit link)

If you have a great location and wish to share it with others then please follow this example by Jeeperdad called Provo History 112 at: (visit link)

 

The idea is to use some information (a number) from the historical marker or monument to derive the coordinates to a nearby traditional cache container.

 

You might also consider posting the coordinates at another website, The International GPS Global Positioning System Waypoint Registry at: (visit link)

 

I hope you understand and don't have any hard feelings. I realize that there may be other virtual caches in this area that are similar to yours but they were approved before the current guidelines were

Edited by Dick & Song Bug

Share this post


Link to post

We can't see the cache because it has not been approved.

 

But you are well on your way to winning many friends in the approver community.

Share this post


Link to post

Bringing arguments over cache approval here has never turned out good for the cache hider...certainly not with attacks on the volunteers.

 

2. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder.  Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.  Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local approver first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

 

It would be interesting to know what was "coffee table book" quality about this cache, but I wouldn't attack the volunteers.

Share this post


Link to post
We can't see the cache because it has not been approved.

 

But you are well on your way to winning many friends in the approver community.

I have added the reply from UTAHADMIN on the non-approval of cache to the bottom of my first post. Appovers need not be friends of the geocaching community. UTAHADMIN and his rational approach to approval would exclude him from being my friend because of the apparent disregard for guidelines and a milk toast half-done attempt at volunteer work.

Share this post


Link to post
<<SNIP>>Appovers need not be friends of the geocaching community.  <<SNIP>>

That line was priceless.

 

 

And as I noted in another thread of yours.

 

"You need to let this go" and move on.

Edited by Harrald

Share this post


Link to post
Bringing arguments over cache approval here has never turned out good for the cache hider...certainly not with attacks on the volunteers.

 

2. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder.  Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.  Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local approver first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

 

It would be interesting to know what was "coffee table book" quality about this cache, but I wouldn't attack the volunteers.

Whos is attacking? Geocachers need not be sheep and be afraid to help the volunteers keep geocaching a game to play. Construtive criticism about a flawed system is not atacking, it is observing that rules are made on the spot and the listed guidelines are worhless.

 

The idea is to get all the approvers on the same page and off the pedestel.

Share this post


Link to post
{snip} Listed guidelines for a Virtual cache say it must be unique and compelling, this cache is both. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say a consensus of approvers worldwide need to approve it. Nowhere does it mention "WOW". This is sight is WOW, UNIQUE and COMPELLING. Note that the approver says that there are other caches in area like ours, where are they? There are none at all in all the world like this, this site is unique.

 

If volunteer approvers keep making their own rules where do the search engines, us, get their guides for placing caches? Without the cache hiders the volunteer would be out of a "job". So in the long run the approvers are getting paid exactly the right amount for the quality of work they do, little and incorrectly. {snip}

From the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines:

 

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder.  Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. 

 

I added the boldfaced emphasis since you seemed to have trouble locating that particular passage, despite being linked to it by the note you received from Utah Admin.

 

I must ask you to avoid personal attacks and insults against the volunteer reviewers. Please consult the Forum Guidelines on this subject. You are welcome to complain about the listing standards for virtual caches all you want, but you must do so within the confines of the Forum Guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
{snip} Listed guidelines for a Virtual cache say it must be unique and compelling, this cache is both.  Nowhere in the guidelines does it say a consensus of approvers worldwide need to approve it.  Nowhere does it mention "WOW".  This is sight is WOW, UNIQUE and COMPELLING.  Note that the approver says that there are other caches in area like ours, where are they?  There are none at all in all the world like this, this site is unique.

 

If volunteer approvers keep making their own rules where do the search engines, us, get their guides for placing caches?  Without the cache hiders the volunteer would be out of a "job".  So in the long run the approvers are getting paid exactly the right amount for the quality of work they do, little and incorrectly. {snip}

From the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines:

 

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder.  Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. 

 

I added the boldfaced emphasis since you seemed to have trouble locating that particular passage, despite being linked to it by the note you received from Utah Admin.

 

I must ask you to avoid personal attacks and insults against the volunteer reviewers. Please consult the Forum Guidelines on this subject. You are welcome to complain about the listing standards for virtual caches all you want, but you must do so within the confines of the Forum Guidelines.

You're right I did miss the "WOW" factor. When cache was first submitted it was submitted as a virtual but approved as a regular cache because of a National Park Service log book at the site, original cache was not ours. The cache "Ruins in a Cave" was then archived because UTAHADMIN said the log book placer must claim cache placement. So it once was a cache and now it is not. What about the three month rule of a cache being left in place? Why does UTAHADMIN, or others, approve then dis-approve

 

The "WOW" portion of the Virtual Guideline was not in "effect" and time of original reuest for approval. This site has "WOW" because of what is there and the view and I believe that the people who pay many hundreds of dollars for Tom Till's photograph of this site would agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Whos is attacking? Geocachers need not be sheep and be afraid to help the volunteers keep geocaching a game to play. Construtive criticism about a flawed system is not atacking, it is observing that rules are made on the spot and the listed guidelines are worhless.

after this?

 

UTAHADMIN and his rational approach to approval would exclude him from being my friend because of the apparent disregard for guidelines and a milk toast half-done attempt at volunteer work.

 

Interesting.

 

So do as I say, not as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
The "WOW" portion of the Virtual Guideline was not in "effect" and time of original reuest for approval.

When did you submit your original request? As far as I know, the guidelines haven't been modified since November of 2003.

 

d158f344-1575-4a00-877f-7d2d84470df4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
The "WOW" portion of the Virtual Guideline was not in "effect" and time of original reuest for approval. This site has "WOW" because of what is there and the view and I believe that the people who pay many hundreds of dollars for Tom Till's photograph of this site would agree.

Dick & Song Bug Joined: 25-November 03

 

Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

Guidelines last updated 11/05/03

 

The guidelines (with the "wow" factor) have been that way since before you joined the site. How can you say they were not in effect when you first submitted the cache? Did you somehow submit before you joined, and then it took the reviewer over a year to decline your cache? :yikes:

Share this post


Link to post
The "WOW" portion of the Virtual Guideline was not in "effect" and time of original reuest for approval. This site has "WOW" because of what is there and the view and I believe that the people who pay many hundreds of dollars for Tom Till's photograph of this site would agree.

Once again, you are operating under a rather interesting set of facts. The facts I'm using state as follows:

 

1. The quoted "WOW" language has been in the guidelines for more than one year.

2. The virtual cache guidelines also make it clear that a "view" is not a virtual cache. Neither is a landmark/natural feature like a mountain, lake or cave.

Share this post


Link to post
The "WOW" portion of the Virtual Guideline was not in "effect" and time of original reuest for approval.

When did you submit your original request? As far as I know, the guidelines haven't been modified since November of 2003.

 

d158f344-1575-4a00-877f-7d2d84470df4.jpg

Is not the question, why are there guidelines when the approver had final say and that approval needs to be a worldwide consensus? I belive our first attempt for approval on this site began was August '03. I will concede the "WOW" factor, I make mistakes just like the rest of the human race and geocache site approvers.

Share this post


Link to post
I have added the reply from UTAHADMIN on the non-approval of cache to the bottom of my first post.  Appovers need not be friends of the geocaching community.  UTAHADMIN and his rational approach to approval would exclude him from being my friend because of the apparent disregard for guidelines and a milk toast half-done attempt at volunteer work.

You would be hard pressed to find someone that has gone after some of the utter nonsense that I see here than me.

 

Just a word of advice, you need to build up a little bit before you launch into your attack. Or at least let the angst level in the tread build up a little. Start of with a nudge and maybe, I repeat maybe, just a slight bit a sarcasm. Then go from there. Opening a thread with that kind of tone was just way over the top, in my opinion. It is like going into a store to return an product and demanding right away to see the manager. You have no place to go at that point, you have to know that perosn is not going to be happy no matter what is done for them.

 

Your point about the level of consistency may in fact be valid. But for better or worse you did not make that the point. The approvers each have a different level of what is wow. And hey they can't go to every site before approving it or not so they really have a job to do when judging what is wow from the front of their computer. I don't think it is their fault, I would say that this use of wow without any further explaination is the real problem. And I think for the most part the approvers didn't write the guidelines, they just try to work within them.

 

Again I would and have been the first to go after TPTB here. I am not taking their side because I am some kind of sheep. You have no idea how far you would be off base if you thought that. I would only say that you need to think a little bit about how you approach and present the point you are trying to make.

Edited by GrizzlyJohn

Share this post


Link to post
I belive our first attempt for approval on this site began was August '03. I will concede the "WOW" factor, I make mistakes just like the rest of the human race and geocache site approvers.

I'm so confused! You are saying you've been trying to get this listed since Aug 2003, but you didn't join until Nov 2003 ?!?

 

Actually, even though the guidelines were last changed on the mentioned date, that was mostly just clarifications. Most of those guidelines go back to at least early 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
The "WOW" portion of the Virtual Guideline was not in "effect" and time of original reuest for approval.  This site has "WOW" because of what is there and the view and I believe that the people who pay many hundreds of dollars for Tom Till's photograph of this site would agree.

Once again, you are operating under a rather interesting set of facts. The facts I'm using state as follows:

 

1. The quoted "WOW" language has been in the guidelines for more than one year.

2. The virtual cache guidelines also make it clear that a "view" is not a virtual cache. Neither is a landmark/natural feature like a mountain, lake or cave.

The view is not the cache, but you must see the cache site to appreciate its value. The view, merit, of this site is a total package. 800 year old rules inside an alcove on a sheer cliff face accessable only from one point is not just a view but an experience, unique and compelling.

 

You can not have the experience without seing the view, you're viewing the total picture. As I have said, this site makes the Grand Canyon look like an ugly gash in the throat of Mother Nature. The ruins themselves are the cache but the view can not be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post

We are glad that we have stirred another hornet's nest. Why do people feel attacked when you critique or comment on their actions? Our actions are not an attack of the individual but a comment on the sad state of affairs of the TPTB, the powers that be.

 

The powers that can be had can be misused either with intention or not.

Share this post


Link to post

We are glad that we have stirred another hornet's nest. 

That would be called trolling

 

Why do people feel attacked when you critique or comment on their actions? 

Because you didn't critique. You attacked.

 

Our actions are not an attack of the individual but a comment on the sad state of affairs of the TPTB, the powers that be.

You might want to re-read your comments. They were (and have been) pretty nasty.

 

The powers that can be had can be misused either with intention or not.

 

Like being rude and not seeing that you are being rude?

Share this post


Link to post

The powers that can be had can be misused either with intention or not.

They can be but they weren't in this case.

 

We are glad that we have stirred another hornet's nest.  Why do people feel attacked when you critique or comment on their actions?

 

Hornets nest? :yikes:

 

Our actions are not an attack of the individual but a comment on the sad state of affairs of the TPTB, the powers that be.

 

Oh, that's all? Well of course our state of affairs are certainly sad. Off to my weeping room...

Share this post


Link to post

We are glad that we have stirred another hornet's nest. 

That would be called trolling

 

Why do people feel attacked when you critique or comment on their actions? 

Because you didn't critique. You attacked.

 

Our actions are not an attack of the individual but a comment on the sad state of affairs of the TPTB, the powers that be.

You might want to re-read your comments. They were (and have been) pretty nasty.

 

The powers that can be had can be misused either with intention or not.

 

Like being rude and not seeing that you are being rude?

I suppose that trying to find understanding and a sense of unity in the guidelines and asking for help is leaving oneself open for such off topic replies. The question remains why does it take a worldwide consensus to approve a virtual and why don't the rules stay the same for evey geocache?

 

Being such a rude person and being told I am could be construed as an attack on me, but it is easy to discount such replies when it is felt that the reply comes from a non-credable source. I could be non-credable and my opinions considered attack oriented. Thanks for your help in not answering the question.

 

This thread is about Virtual Cache approval and the guidelines that are in place now. I have been educated here is the last few hours, the "WOW" part, and it appears that the degree I recieved is worthless.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still trying to figure out how someone who joined the site at the end of Nov 2003 has been trying to get a cache approved since Aug 2003?

Why is that question getting ignored? :yikes:

Share this post


Link to post
I have been educated here is the last few hours, the "WOW" part, and it appears that the degree I recieved is worthless.

Many degrees are worthless. Do we still know what this cache listing is all about? Copy & Paste it here so we can tell you why it wasn't approved.

Share this post


Link to post

The powers that can be had can be misused either with intention or not.

They can be but they weren't in this case.

 

We are glad that we have stirred another hornet's nest.  Why do people feel attacked when you critique or comment on their actions?

 

Hornets nest? :yikes:

 

Our actions are not an attack of the individual but a comment on the sad state of affairs of the TPTB, the powers that be.

 

Oh, that's all? Well of course our state of affairs are certainly sad. Off to my weeping room...

:laughing: How can you say the rules were not abused? UTAHADMIN says approval needs to be a worldwide consensus. Where is worldwide consensus in the guidelines? How is this worldwide consensus achieved in under three days. Where and what are the rules?

 

When people state their disatisfaction with the government are they attacking the president, no, they are stating an opinion which some may agree with or not. Dissatisfaction with cache approval is the same. Peronalities need not enter into the picture. By nature we protect what we sense is ours and sometimes the power granted to us lets us protect only what we think is important to us and then disregard all else.

 

Thank goodness we are the search engine and geocaching.com is just a listing service. I apologize if it seems I am attacking.

Share this post


Link to post
I have been educated here is the last few hours, the "WOW" part, and it appears that the degree I recieved is worthless.

Many degrees are worthless. Do we still know what this cache listing is all about? Copy & Paste it here so we can tell you why it wasn't approved.

Here is a cut and paste of web page. Thanks for the suggestion. You are the first person to offer help and to try and explain cache approval. I hope you can tell us why this cache was not approved.

 

Tom Till's Photograph

[click to enable]

by Dick & Song Bug [profile]

 

 

Cache Issues:

 

This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes.

This cache has not been approved yet. Once it is approved, it will be listed on the site. Check the logs to see if the reviewers have left a note for this listing.

The reviewers will not see this listing until you activate it.

This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.

 

Click icon to download:

 

Read about waypoint downloads

 

In Utah, United States [view map]

Hidden: 11/20/2004

Use waypoint: GCM3NF (what's this?)

Make this page print-friendly (no logs)

 

Note:To use the services of geocaching.com, you must agree to the terms and conditions in our disclaimer.

 

(ratings out of 5 stars. 1 is easiest, 5 is hardest)

Difficulty: Terrain:

 

This is the site of the famous Tom Till photograph, "Ruins In A Cave". From the National Park Service supplied description, found inside cave, email us the answer to these two questions to log find. What is the real name of this place and what are the round objects in the back on the floor of the cave called.

 

 

Additional Hints (No hints available)

 

 

Find...

...other caches hidden or found by this user

...nearby caches of this type

...all nearby caches

...all nearby placenames

...all nearby benchmarks

...all nearby hiking trails from Trails.com

 

 

For online maps...

Geocaching.com Maps

MapQuest

Microsoft MapPoint

Yahoo Maps

Rand McNally

Topozone

Terraserver

Tiger Census Maps

 

 

Logged Visits (3 total. Visit the Gallery)

Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

Cache find counts are based on the last time the page generated.

 

November 23 by Dick & Song Bug (162 found)

RE: GCM3NF Tom Till's Photograph. I have read and followed the guidelines for a virtual cache and nowhere does it mention the word "WOW". Unique and compelling are the words used in the guidelines.

If a virtual needs to approved by a concensus of approvers worldwide then how did you querry them all in less than three days. Why are you not letting old caches stay there, "Ruins in a Cave" or why are you not aprroving caches in this area?

 

We feel you are hiding the real facts about this cache area or you are making up your own rules.

 

The area is unique and is sought after by many people but found by few. The uniqeness comes from what is at the cache site, this is the only thing of its sort North of the Colorado River. It is compelling because of its nature and the view.

 

Offset caches, mystery caches, etc. have their place as do Virtual Caches. This site is a prime virtual. Please tell us the real reason for not approving this site.

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

[upload an image for this log]

 

November 22 by UtahAdmin (0 found)

Virtual caches currently a very touchy issue at geocaching. They are only approved in extremely rare conditions. It must be in a location where a physical cache is not possible and it must have a "Wow" factor as determined by a consensus of the reviewers worldwide. Please review the published Guidelines for Virtual Caches at: (visit link)

If you have a great location and wish to share it with others then please follow this example by Jeeperdad called Provo History 112 at: (visit link)

 

The idea is to use some information (a number) from the historical marker or monument to derive the coordinates to a nearby traditional cache container.

 

You might also consider posting the coordinates at another website, The International GPS Global Positioning System Waypoint Registry at: (visit link)

 

I hope you understand and don't have any hard feelings. I realize that there may be other virtual caches in this area that are similar to yours but they were approved before the current guidelines were adopted.

 

[view this log on a separate page]

 

November 20 by Dick & Song Bug (162 found)

This sight is unique because it is the only such place in Utah and the entire Canyonlands area that contains what is seen there. The area is remote and can not be seen by even long term hard looking. The area is "camoflauged" by natural terrain. The site is compelling because of its nature, remotness and being unique. After talking to many people and the photographer himself it took us about 25 attempts to locate and view site.

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

[upload an image for this log]

Share this post


Link to post

(Comment withdrawn because of above, "simultaneously" posted response.)

Edited by beejay&esskay

Share this post


Link to post
I apologize if it seems I am attacking.

Seems?

 

Come on man you started attacking right from your first post when you said, "So in the long run the approvers are getting paid exactly the right amount for the quality of work they do, little and incorrectly." And you have not let up since then. Just because you go after a group you can't then say you are not attacking any individuals. That group is made up of individuals.

 

Do yourself and everyone here a favor go back to the top of this thread and reread everything you wrote as if someone else had written it and you were reading it as we are.

 

If you can get to the end and say that you are not attacking then you are out of your mind and have lost all touch with reality. And I will also add to that you are an idiot. And I will take the warning for that if a mod needs to send one my way without any problem from me.

Edited by GrizzlyJohn

Share this post


Link to post

The view has nothing to do with the cache except it is there as a byproduct of the enviroment. The cache itself is the 800 year old ruins in a cave on a vertical cliff face. The photo mentioned is Tom Till's "Ruins in A Cave". If you have seen the photo of the ruins you know that the attached view is inescapable.

Share this post


Link to post
I apologize if it seems I am attacking.

Seems?

 

Come on man you started attacking right from your first post when you said, "So in the long run the approvers are getting paid exactly the right amount for the quality of work they do, little and incorrectly." And you have not let up since then. Just because you go after a group you can't then say you are not attacking any individuals. That group is made up of individuals.

 

Do yourself and everyone here a favor go back to the top of this thread and reread everything you wrote as if someone else had written it and you were reading it as we are.

 

If you can get to the end and say that you are not attacking then you are out of your mind and have lost all touch with reality. And I will also add to that you are an idiot. And I will take the warning for that if a mod needs to send one my way without any problem from me.

This is an example of a non-credable source. No answer to the question just a version of chat room attack. By your logic and by your attacking me and my ways as an individual, by your logic and statements you then are attacking the geocaching community as a whole, is that right?

 

Circular logic gets me dizzy and my logic and tactics may not meet your approval but I do not need your approval. What I need is the answer to the question, "Why does it take worldwide approval for a virtual and why are'nt the rules all the same approver to approver. Being a volunteer approver must be difficult but if you can't stand the heat generated by the inconsistent approval methods you use for approval, get out of the kitchen.

 

This is not a personal issue it involves the basis of geocaching, the hiding of a log book and in its evolved system, the developement of Virtual, Mystery, et al caches.

 

I do not want to confuse any geocachers by my faulty, fuzzy and circular logic and lack of manners but I want to draw attention to the "looholes, vagaries, inconsistent rulings and the general "wing it" attitude of the highly respected cache approvers.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this persons question has been answered and they refuse to see it. No amount of explanation will help them understand.

 

Also calling you rude wasn't an attack. It was a statement about the way you have been acting. Calling you Bipolar and asking if you missed your meds would have been an insult.

Share this post


Link to post
I think this is the picture being referred to:

 

Tom Till gallery

 

Very beautiful. But if the view isn't the cache, what is the "wow"?

Yes that is the picture. See the ruins in the picture? The ruins are in an alcove on a vertical cliff that happens to look out on a canyon. The ruins are the cache. The "WOW" is the placement, accessablity, finding, adventure and the uniqueness of this particular site. Nothing comes close to what this site offers.

 

I will stop flogging a dead horse and end here.

Share this post


Link to post
I think this persons question has been answered and they refuse to see it. No amount of explanation will help them understand.

 

Also calling you rude wasn't an attack. It was a statement about the way you have been acting. Calling you Bipolar and asking if you missed your meds would have been an insult.

And I suppose that by telling you to get rid of some weight, get the rag off your head and get a job, would be insulting? I think it would be and would have no place in a forum on cache approval, such as this. How can you state what I should know? The question of the ability for abuse in cache approval has not been answered. If it has please quote your source to me.

 

Do not spare my feelings as my meds take care of that for me. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
I belive our first attempt for approval on this site began was August '03.  I will concede the "WOW" factor, I make mistakes just like the rest of the human race and geocache site approvers.

I'm so confused! You are saying you've been trying to get this listed since Aug 2003, but you didn't join until Nov 2003 ?!?

 

Actually, even though the guidelines were last changed on the mentioned date, that was mostly just clarifications. Most of those guidelines go back to at least early 2003.

Blah Blah. Three posts, no answer.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how someone who joined the site at the end of Nov 2003 has been trying to get a cache approved since Aug 2003?

Why is that question getting ignored? 

Blah Blah. FIVE more replies, still no answer?

Now you got me wondering if there isn't more here then you are letting on?

There are always at least 2 sides to every story, and it's starting to look like you're only giving us one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
I belive our first attempt for approval on this site began was August '03.  I will concede the "WOW" factor, I make mistakes just like the rest of the human race and geocache site approvers.

I'm so confused! You are saying you've been trying to get this listed since Aug 2003, but you didn't join until Nov 2003 ?!?

 

Actually, even though the guidelines were last changed on the mentioned date, that was mostly just clarifications. Most of those guidelines go back to at least early 2003.

Blah Blah. Three posts, no answer.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how someone who joined the site at the end of Nov 2003 has been trying to get a cache approved since Aug 2003?

Why is that question getting ignored? 

Blah Blah. FIVE more replies, still no answer?

Now you got me wondering if there isn't more here then you are letting on?

There are always at least 2 sides to every story, and it's starting to look like you're only giving us one of them.

I did not read that you had a question. You made some statements and wondered, but you asked no question. Some plausable answers to your non-question are: Our son took the original geocache screen name when he left home. - My spouse died and I could not bear to use her name in our screen name. - I was part of another group of geocachers but decided to go out on my own. - Dates of membership could be wrong.

 

I am not sure how all this pertains to needing a worldwide consensus to approve a Virtual Cache. Can you now answer my question , I have not tracked your number of replies, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
By your logic and by your attacking me and my ways as an individual, by your logic and statements you then are attacking the geocaching community as a whole, is that right?

That is not my logic. If it was an attack on you it does not extend to the group as a whole. But when a group is attacked then it does extend to each individual in the group.

 

To use what you say (I won't even pretend that it was logic, fuzzy, faulty or otherwise) then any attack made on any individual would be an attack on the human race as a whole, is that right? Seems to fall apart somewhere there because being a part of the group makes one a victim of the attack, hence one would be attacking themself.

 

Calling you Bipolar and asking if you missed your meds would have been an insult.

I think we all know the answer to that.

Share this post


Link to post
I will stop flogging a dead horse and end here.

You meant you'd end your questions about your cache altogether, or just end that particular post?

Share this post


Link to post
By your logic and by your attacking me and my ways as an individual, by your logic and statements you then are attacking the geocaching community as a whole, is that right?

That is not my logic. If it was an attack on you it does not extend to the group as a whole. But when a group is attacked then it does extend to each individual in the group.

 

To use what you say (I won't even pretend that it was logic, fuzzy, faulty or otherwise) then any attack made on any individual would be an attack on the human race as a whole, is that right? Seems to fall apart somewhere there because being a part of the group makes one a victim of the attack, hence one would be attacking themself.

 

Calling you Bipolar and asking if you missed your meds would have been an insult.

I think we all know the answer to that.

Whew, where are my meds when I need them?

 

Any suggestions or hints on why it takes a worldwide consensus to approve a Virtual Cache?

Share this post


Link to post
I will stop flogging a dead horse and end here.

You meant you'd end your questions about your cache altogether, or just end that particular post?

Particular post. Any answer or suggestion to the original question?

Share this post


Link to post
Any suggestions or hints on why it takes a worldwide consensus to approve a Virtual Cache?

Can't say I know the answer to that.

 

You may want to try sending an email to contact@Groundspeak.com and ask that question.

Share this post


Link to post
I will stop flogging a dead horse and end here.

You meant you'd end your questions about your cache altogether, or just end that particular post?

Particular post. Any answer or suggestion to the original question?

Hmmm.... the only question I saw in your original post was, "Note that the approver says that there are other caches in area like ours, where are they?"

 

So I'll answer it.

 

The approver never said that. He said that there *may* be other virtuals like it in your area, and if so they were approved before the rules were changed.

Share this post


Link to post

Also in reading what the approver wrote there could be another meaning.

 

The approver may not have meant a worldwide consensus on every cache. Maybe what was meant was that the policy and how it is handled applies worldwide. And that approvers local to the cache in question come to a consensus.

 

Or maybe at some point all of the approvers worldwide did come to a consensus of what is wow and they are using that to apply to their approvals.

 

I am not the approver (or any approver for that matter (that is one thing we can all be sure would never happen)) so I can't say what they were thinking. But I can come away from their statement with a couple of different meanings. Maybe it would have be helpful if you wrote and asked them to explain what they meant in a little more detail. Of course if you did that and you did it like you did here I am not sure you would have deserved a response. Yea my guess is that there is more going on here than I know about.

Edited by GrizzlyJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Any suggestions or hints on why it takes a worldwide consensus to approve a Virtual Cache?

Can't say I know the answer to that.

 

You may want to try sending an email to contact@Groundspeak.com and ask that question.

Now we're getting somwehre. Griz you have redeemed yourself and have gained my respect, for what it is worth, you have made a constructive suggestion and one that I did not think of.

 

After all the previous postings back and forth, attacking, fending and insulting it is nice to get such a helpful reply. On my soapbox I say, "Do not let personalities get in the way of answering a question for help." Thanks again.

 

We all know geocaching is a business for somebody. Business should mean profit and protection from liability. Remember Grounspeak does not accept liability for placed geocaches, that is the resposablity of the cache owner, you and I. Hence another question is raised about cache approval, can approval be denied because Groundspeak fears litigation?

 

Common sense in the type of cache and where it is placed is not present in all humans. Guidelines are then mandatory. These same guidelines must be followed at all times. Volunteer work pays very little (LOL) but that is not an excuse or reason to make up your own rules. I do not want the job of an approver and I can appreciate how much time and effort such a task could take. Do not use the volunteer status to glean sympathy or use it as an excuse for the quality of work that is produced. if you make rules stick to them and keep them fair and equal for all. Sic semper tyranus.

Share this post


Link to post
Also in reading what the approver wrote there could be another meaning.

 

The approver may not have meant a worldwide consensus on every cache. Maybe what was meant was that the policy and how it is handled applies worldwide. And that approvers local to the cache in question come to a consensus.

 

Or maybe at some point all of the approvers worldwide did come to a consensus of what is wow and they are using that to apply to their approvals.

 

I am not the approver (or any approver for that matter (that is one thing we can all be sure would never happen)) so I can't say what they were thinking. But I can come away from their statement with a couple of different meanings. Maybe it would have be helpful if you wrote and asked them to explain what they meant in a little more detail. Of course if you did that and you did it like you did here I am not sure you would have deserved a response. Yea my guess is that there is more going on here than I know about.

I agree, but what is going on?

Share this post


Link to post
I did not read that you had a question. You made some statements and wondered, but you asked no question. Some plausable answers to your non-question are: Our son took the original geocache screen name when he left home. - My spouse died and I could not bear to use her name in our screen name. - I was part of another group of geocachers but decided to go out on my own. - Dates of membership could be wrong.

 

I am not sure how all this pertains to needing a worldwide consensus to approve a Virtual Cache. Can you now answer my question , I have not tracked your number of replies, sorry.

It has to do with why it took over a year for your cache to be reviewed. I mean, must of us can understand an occasional delay, but it seemed rather odd that it took 15 months to review your cache. The fact that it seems like it spans two different accounts might explain some of the breakdown. Can you post what your other account is, and what the GC# is of the first cache is? Was the cache description the same? Perhaps this can be looked into to see why you had a problem.

 

You keep asking:

Any suggestions or hints on why it takes a worldwide consensus to approve a Virtual Cache?

The reviewers are often accused of being inconsistent or writing their own rules. You've said as much in this thread. Yet it sounds like you are complaining they work together and consult with each other to try and ensure they are consistent and following the written guidelines?

There are a set of guidelines to be followed for a cache to be listed in this site. It sounds like your reviewer checked with his peers to see if any of them felt your cache met those guidelines. They agreed it didn't. Just like you get to decide what you want on your website, they get to decide what they want on theirs. I can't see the issue.

I'd be more concerned with why it took 15 months to get to this point, hopefully you can help them figure that out so it doesn't happen again.

Share this post


Link to post

Grizzly John, you are precisely correct, and I thank you for your post. I was about to write the same thing.

 

The volunteer reviewers as a group certainly do not evaluate every single virtual cache submission to get a "worldwide consensus." However, we coordinate our efforts as best we can -- using our reviewer's forum and other methods -- so that something close to a consistent approach can be taken worldwide. A historic marker should be turned down as a virtual whether you are in Utah, Illinois or Italy. A virtual that meets the rather stringent tests should be listed no matter whether you are in Utah, Finland or or Florida.

 

Over time, we develop a consensus that a particular type of virtual is generally not going to be listed. A year ago the guidelines were updated to give clear examples of these. Other cases are decided based on the cache listing guidelines. In close cases, the reviewer will post the specifics of the cache in the reviewer's forum for comment. A dozen caches have been discussed in the past week alone, including three or four virtuals. In this way, we attempt to achieve consensus -- and yes, we do respond within a few days. It is not a perfect process, as caches are unique and cache reviewers are human, but we do the very best we can.

 

As the final remaining question, as posed by the topic originator, has now been answered, I hope everyone can regard this matter as resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Grizzly John, you are precisely correct, and I thank you for your post. I was about to write the same thing.

 

The volunteer reviewers as a group certainly do not evaluate every single virtual cache submission to get a "worldwide consensus." However, we coordinate our efforts as best we can -- using our reviewer's forum and other methods -- so that something close to a consistent approach can be taken worldwide. A historic marker should be turned down as a virtual whether you are in Utah, Illinois or Italy. A virtual that meets the rather stringent tests should be listed no matter whether you are in Utah, Finland or or Florida.

 

Over time, we develop a consensus that a particular type of virtual is generally not going to be listed. A year ago the guidelines were updated to give clear examples of these. Other cases are decided based on the cache listing guidelines. In close cases, the reviewer will post the specifics of the cache in the reviewer's forum for comment. A dozen caches have been discussed in the past week alone, including three or four virtuals. In this way, we attempt to achieve consensus -- and yes, we do respond within a few days. It is not a perfect process, as caches are unique and cache reviewers are human, but we do the very best we can.

 

As the final remaining question, as posed by the topic originator, has now been answered, I hope everyone can regard this matter as resolved.

It is nice to see a reply with useful information. Thanks for all the help.

Share this post


Link to post

You're quite welcome. I think I'll go crawl back into my "loohole" now and either "wing it" or make up some new rules. I can't decide which, because I'm arbitrary.

Share this post


Link to post
You're quite welcome. I think I'll go crawl back into my "loohole" now and either "wing it" or make up some new rules. I can't decide which, because I'm arbitrary.

I appreciate your candid references. Humor is one thing that some people are good at, do you have another forte?

 

Another question, If a geocacher finds a cache in the woods and signs log book and does not log it online, did he still find it?

 

In the same vain, If you play a record in the woods and nobody hears it, does the band still get royalties? Or, If your computer crashes in the woods and nobody reboots it, is your data still safe?

 

What a fun wasted morning on this thread, don't tell my employer.

Share this post


Link to post

No, I do not have another forte. Whatever ability I might have to keep calm in the forums is directly attributable to my Kevlar flak jacket, as noted in the Forum Guidelines linked in the upper left corner of each forum page, together with a healthy diet of Prozac.

 

But thanks for askin'.

Share this post


Link to post
No, I do not have another forte. Whatever ability I might have to keep calm in the forums is directly attributable to my Kevlar flak jacket, as noted in the Forum Guidelines linked in the upper left corner of each forum page, together with a healthy diet of Prozac.

 

But thanks for askin'.

Da nada, Zoloft works better for some I have heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×
×
  • Create New...