+Turtle3863 Posted February 6, 2005 Author Share Posted February 6, 2005 (edited) Kindly give the reviewers a chance to consider your cache submission and reach a consensus. This usually takes about a day, as indicated in the note left on your cache page. This is the reason that I was upset about this in the beginning. It has now been 7 days and I have yet to get ANYTHING back from the reviewers and Max Cacher has informed me that he is now out of the loop. Just like to be kept informed and not think this one has been thrown in the lost pile of caches. Edited February 6, 2005 by Turtle3863 Link to comment
+shunra Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 How is the cache in question any different in spirit from this particular cache that I have on my to do list. Yeah, I know. Who pays the bills for this website isn't a small matter, but if I was passing through Louisville and doing some caching, I think I'd be glad to learn about the business history of the city, especially since I'm familiar (too familiar) with the product. I think that the problem with THAT cache is not that it's commercial (not only is Groundspeak relevant to geocaching, but it provides the service we're using), but that it's for invitees only, not publicly accessible, and should be removed from the listings, like others cannot have a cache in their private living room. (I suggest that that cache be archived and removed from the listings, but remain logable for people who are incited.) But as to the Louisville culprit cache - that cache has nothing to do with the business history of that city (or with it's social fabric, or whatever). I'm a sucker for industrial history myself, and I'd have loved it if instead, we'd been shown some ancient production plants, now-obsolete logos, etc. Link to comment
+Bull Moose Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 But as to the Louisville culprit cache - that cache has nothing to do with the business history of that city (or with it's social fabric, or whatever). I'm a sucker for industrial history myself, and I'd have loved it if instead, we'd been shown some ancient production plants, now-obsolete logos, etc. I guess my point is if there is going to be a cache there anyway, why not let him say, "That's YUM! HQ over there. KFC has always been here.... The original KFC oven is there..." I'd like that more than grabbing a micro and missing out on where I was. The logos might be a bit much. That's up to Groundspeak, I suppose. Link to comment
Max Cacher Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 Sometimes its takes a while for TPTB to check out the cache listing, don’t think the corporations are going to move out of town while they are reviewing it. Patience Grasshopper, Patience Max Cacher Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 (edited) While I was at lunch, it occured to me that companies may not really care for their logos being used willy nilly on GC.com cache pages. They may prefer to approve the use of their logos in this manner. This issue may possibly be delaying the approval of this cache. Turtle- Would you be willing to remove the logos in order to get this cache listed? Would you be willing to do a mild rewrite to the cache page so you are not using the company's own words? Edited February 7, 2005 by sbell111 Link to comment
+Turtle3863 Posted February 7, 2005 Author Share Posted February 7, 2005 Turtle- Would you be willing to remove the logos in order to get this cache listed? Would you be willing to do a mild rewrite to the cache page so you are not using the company's own words? Sure, if that is what it takes. I already plan on adding a little more history anyway. As of yet, I have had no recomendation of any kind from TPTB. I have no problem with tweeking the cache if asked to do so. Link to comment
+Bull Moose Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 While I was at lunch, it occured to me that companies may not really care for their logos being used willy nilly on GC.com cache pages. They may prefer to approve the use of their logos in this manner. Fantastic point.... I know the company I work for is kind of protective of their logo, and they are way less high profile than the ones in question. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 I did really like your papa john's cache. I didn't realize that it was yours when I mentioned it earlier in the thread. Link to comment
ju66l3r Posted February 7, 2005 Share Posted February 7, 2005 While I was at lunch, it occured to me that companies may not really care for their logos being used willy nilly on GC.com cache pages. They may prefer to approve the use of their logos in this manner. We are talking about the same company that uses talking chihuahuas, Jessica Simpson, and flying muppets along side its sacred logo right? Link to comment
+Turtle3863 Posted February 8, 2005 Author Share Posted February 8, 2005 Well here is the approved cache. It has changed a whole lot, but I can live with it. GCMN9C Link to comment
ju66l3r Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 GCMN9C (in link form) Congratulations and I hope this gives you a good template for making your other Louisville corporate HQ cache pages. I think the result has been worth the process. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 I like it. I like it alot. Link to comment
+ironman114 Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Much better looking Link to comment
+shunra Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 Well here is the approved cache. It has changed a whole lot, but I can live with it. GCMN9C Thanks for sticking with it. I like this one! Link to comment
Keystone Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 I hope everyone can agree that the final cache page complies with the Guidelines regarding Commercial Caches. The cache page reads a lot better. I much prefer Turtle's history summary to the corporate-speak that used to lead off the cache page, and the images are related to the history rather than looking like a magazine ad. Nice cache. Volunteers go through this process regularly with other hiders. We are happy to work with you. This was a close case so it was kicked upstairs, and that takes a bit longer. Link to comment
+CO Admin Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 I hope everyone can agree that the final cache page complies with the Guidelines regarding Commercial Caches. The cache page reads a lot better. I much prefer Turtle's history summary to the corporate-speak that used to lead off the cache page, and the images are related to the history rather than looking like a magazine ad. Nice cache. Volunteers go through this process regularly with other hiders. We are happy to work with you. This was a close case so it was kicked upstairs, and that takes a bit longer. Yes the Volunteers do this all the time. Sometimes the hard part is getting the hider to work with us sometimes instead of just getting upset and stomping off. Link to comment
+Turtle3863 Posted February 9, 2005 Author Share Posted February 9, 2005 (edited) OK, I will have to admit, I do like the cache that has evolved. Next time that I get upset, I will have to learn to count to ten before I react. Thanks for all the comments. One not so Ticked Off Paying Cacher Edited February 9, 2005 by Turtle3863 Link to comment
+shunra Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 One not so Ticked Off Paying Cacher Good for you. Time to close the thread Link to comment
Jeremy Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 That is one cool cache page. I especially like the personal note which I think was lost before (or was it there?). Actually I had no idea there was a Yum! Brands, Inc. Sounds like something out of a movie and not a real company Link to comment
Recommended Posts