Bad Reviewers Take The Fun Out Of Geocaching.

[+Captain Faisua]

Before continueing, let me express my accolades and sincere thanks for the thoughtful and hard work of the many volunteers who have made the geocaching possible. This letter is not for you. It is for the geo-nazi's.

 

My concern is with what I consider to be arbitrary and narrow-minded decisions of certain geocaching reviewers. Two times now, reviewers have prevented me from publishing a cache. The first time because I made three caches within in a short period of time with similar names and descriptions. I don’t know why that was so unbelievable, but the reviewer blocked them, and would not respond to my explanations.

 

Just recently, a reviewer disallowed my new cache because I had inadvertently placed it within 0.1 miles of another cache. That other cache was “temporarily unavailable” at the time, which is why it did not show up when I was researching my cache. Again, that reviewer would not respond to my queries. And the other cache remains "temporarily unavailable", and thus tieing up some prime geocaching real estate.

 

Now it appears that a geospider I released a couple years ago has met it’s death because someone placed it into a cache that a reviewer has prevented from being published. I had enjoyed watching that geospider as it moved from place to place. Now it appears it has gone south of the border permanently. My letter below describes the situation.

 

I hope that geocaching.com reviewers will lighten up and get off their high horses. And why do they have to make it so difficult to send them an email message? And why do they not respond to messages? If they continue their supercilious behavior, I fear that they will take the fun out of geocaching.

 

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

I sent this message to "steveandki";

 

Hello,

 

I am owner of the spider "Charlie I'm scared of the sea Tuna". According to the logs, you put this spider into a new cache you created called "Gato Del Mar". That cache has yet to be published, which I presume means that Charlie and the rest of the cache's contents will never see the light of day again.

 

This is unfortunate. I also have had trouble publishing a couple caches, due to the annoying and arbitrary decisions of a reviewer on Geocaching.com. In my case, the reviewer questioned the validity of my caches because I made several caches with similar sounding names and descriptions. Then the review would not respond to my explanations for that.

 

Anyway, I hope a similar fate has not prevented your cache and my geospider from death. Please let me know if you are successful in getting "Gato Del Mar" published.

 

-Captain Faisua

cc: Geocaching team.

Edited May 20, 2006 by Captain Faisua

[+StarBrand]

With over 80 hides, I have only had one cache questioned and it did indeed violate the guidelines. My Fault.

 

I suspect there is more to the story over the similar names caches. Many hiders have caches with similar names. Many hide multiple caches in a day. I have hidden up to 5 in one day. Must be more going on then you are telling us so far.

 

Temp disables caches still show up on my searches so I am not sure what you did wrong. And you do admit it violated the 528 guideline. So go move it.

 

I have nothing but praise and thanks to the many volenteers that spend a lot of time to make the sport what it is today.

[+sTeamTraen]

In the case of the TB I think you are being a bit pessimistic. I presume that the placer of the cache containing it, will either negotiate the cache's successful approval, or go back and collect the box (to avoid geolitter) and then place it somewhere else.

[+Captain Faisua]

With over 80 hides, I have only had one cache questioned and it did indeed violate the guidelines. My Fault.

 

I suspect there is more to the story over the similar names caches. Many hiders have caches with similar names. Many hide multiple caches in a day. I have hidden up to 5 in one day. Must be more going on then you are telling us so far.

 

Temp disables caches still show up on my searches so I am not sure what you did wrong. And you do admit it violated the 528 guideline. So go move it.

 

I have nothing but praise and thanks to the many volenteers that spend a lot of time to make the sport what it is today.

 

StarBrand - You are right, the many volunteers who have made geocaching possible deserve our accolades. I certainly do not mean to discourage the thoughtfull and hard work that they have put into it. I also do not want to see it ruined by a few geo-nazi's. Take care. PS - I did move my cache, and it is now published. But the issue of unavailable caches taking up prime geocaching real estate remains.

[+Snoogans]

With over 80 hides, I have only had one cache questioned and it did indeed violate the guidelines. My Fault.

 

I have nothing but praise and thanks to the many volenteers that spend a lot of time to make the sport what it is today.

 

I've never had a hide questioned, but I've had a couple events held up from publishing and a couple that were outright denied for what seem to me to be trivial reasons.

 

One of the hold ups still angers me to this day even though Hydee called me in person to apologize for the reviewer's behavior. It should have never happened in the first place.

 

One of the denials resulted in my thread "Let's calmly discuss....when to fire a volunteer." In that particular case I feel the reviewer was too rigid in their enforcement of the rules and then proceded to add insult to injury. Even though I bear no ill will toward this person and we are on good terms, the bedside manner could still use some loosening.

 

I have almost nothing but praise and thanks for the many volunteers that spend a lot of time to make the sport what it is today and what isn't praise would be the most respectful constructive criticism I could offer.

 

They all do a mostly thankless job that I wouldn't accept if it was offered. Good work volunteer team!

Edited May 20, 2006 by Snoogans

[+Prime Suspect]

My concern is with what I consider to be arbitrary and narrow-minded decisions of geocaching reviewers. Two times now, reviewers have prevented me from publishing a cache. The first time because I made three caches within in a short period of time with similar names and descriptions. I don’t know why that was so unbelievable, but the reviewer blocked them, and would not respond to my explanations.

 

The clock is ticking on how long it take before we find out the real reason the caches were disallowed. We've only seen this about, oh, a thousand times before. "My cache was denied for [insert ridiculous reason here]!", only to find out the actual reason later on.

[+Captain Faisua]

Thank you. I forgot in my anger that I do really appriciate the thoughful and hardwork of the many persons who have made geocaching possible.

[+Prime Suspect]

But the issue of unavailable caches taking up prime geocaching real estate remains.

 

If there are caches that have been disabled for an extended period of time, post a SBA or contact the reviewer about them. Until they're archived, they're treated just like active caches, in regards to proximity (for obvious reasons).

[+Captain Faisua]

My concern is with what I consider to be arbitrary and narrow-minded decisions of geocaching reviewers. Two times now, reviewers have prevented me from publishing a cache. The first time because I made three caches within in a short period of time with similar names and descriptions. I don’t know why that was so unbelievable, but the reviewer blocked them, and would not respond to my explanations.

 

The clock is ticking on how long it take before we find out the real reason the caches were disallowed. We've only seen this about, oh, a thousand times before. "My cache was denied for [insert ridiculous reason here]!", only to find out the actual reason later on.

 

It sounds like your mind is made up. I'm guess that it would be a waste of my time to try to explain anything to you.

[Keystone]

OP, you've already invoked Godwin's law. Having already called me a Nazi, my inclination to assist you with practical advice or a second opinion assessment on your troubles drops off dramatically.

 

As a forum moderator I will ask you to kindly tolerate differing points of view. Don't be dismissive of posts like Prime Suspect's. He's been around for awhile. Snoogans' viewpoint is equally valid. But, you cannot allow only the posts which agree with your point.

[+Mopar]

Before continueing, let me express my accolades and sincere thanks for the thoughtful and hard work of the many volunteers who have made the geocaching possible. This letter is not for you. It is for the geo-nazi's.

Wow, Godwin's law invoked in the very first post!

 

My concern is with what I consider to be arbitrary and narrow-minded decisions of certain geocaching reviewers. Two times now, reviewers have prevented me from publishing a cache. The first time because I made three caches within in a short period of time with similar names and descriptions. I don’t know why that was so unbelievable, but the reviewer blocked them, and would not respond to my explanations.

Seeing that you are in WA, and knowing some of those reviewers personally, I'm fairly certain there is MUCH more to the story then you describe. Can't wait to hear it.

Just recently, a reviewer disallowed my new cache because I had inadvertently placed it within 0.1 miles of another cache. That other cache was “temporarily unavailable” at the time, which is why it did not show up when I was researching my cache. Again, that reviewer would not respond to my queries. And the other cache remains "temporarily unavailable", and thus tieing up some prime geocaching real estate.

So, you screwed up and hid a cache against the guidelines and your mad at the reviewer for making you follow the rules???

Now it appears that a geospider I released a couple years ago has met it’s death because someone placed it into a cache that a reviewer has prevented from being published. I had enjoyed watching that geospider as it moved from place to place. Now it appears it has gone south of the border permanently. My letter below describes the situation.

Since this isn't your cache, you have no idea what the reason was it wasn't listed. For all you know it could be full of guns, drugs, and kiddie porn. Perhaps it's hidden in an area where those silly park nazis (to borrow your term) have made geocaching illegal or require a permit that the hider didn't obtain. Perhaps the cache is 5000 miles from home, and the coords are bad and the owner can't go back and fix it. Without knowing the reason, it's pretty nazi-like to accuse the reviewer of wrong-doing.

 

I hope that geocaching.com reviewers will lighten up and get off their high horses. And why do they have to make it so difficult to send them an email message? And why do they not respond to messages? If they continue their supercilious behavior, I fear that they will take the fun out of geocaching.

What should they do to make you happy? not enforce the rules that the website asks them to follow? If they ignored the guidelines to make people like you happy, I'm sure GC.com would replace them in short order.

As someone who has been caching since the days before most of the rules and guidelines, I can assure you most of them have come about to eliminate problems with land managers, police, and the majority of other cachers. I accept those rules knowing because of them it is more likely that I will be able to continue to enjoy caching for many more years to come instead of having it banned.

 

EDIT: That Keystone types a lot faster then I do.

Edited May 20, 2006 by Mopar

[+Captain Faisua]

OP, you've already invoked Godwin's law. Having already called me a Nazi, my inclination to assist you with practical advice or a second opinion assessment on your troubles drops off dramatically.

 

As a forum moderator I will ask you to kindly tolerate differing points of view. Don't be dismissive of posts like Prime Suspect's. He's been around for awhile. Snoogans' viewpoint is equally valid. But, you cannot allow only the posts which agree with your point.

 

Did I call you a Nazi? Or did I refer to you as one of the thoughtful helpful people who made geocaching possible? You decide. Anyway, I've said my piece, I have little elce to add. I would just ask the reviewers to lighten up, and be more friendly, helpful and responsive in cases where a new cache may infringe on some rule you have.

[+Mopar]

and would not respond to my explanations.

 

Again, that reviewer would not respond to my queries.

 

And why do they have to make it so difficult to send them an email message? And why do they not respond to messages?

 

One other thing.

It's pretty unusual for them not to respond at all, especially on multiple cache hides at different times.

Usually when people post here they never got a reply from Groundspeak or the cache reviewers its because of one of the following reasons, not that they were being ignored.

 

Is it possible you either replied directly to the email you got when they left a note on your cache page? That comes from the GC.com email server, not the person posting the note. If you hit reply to that nobody will get the email.

 

If you replied to them on the cache page and they asked you to email them, it's possible they never even saw your reply.

 

It's possible you have a spam filter that is trapping their emails by mistake.

 

Just a few of the common reasons I've seen posted here over the years.

[+CO Admin]

OP, you've already invoked Godwin's law. Having already called me a Nazi, my inclination to assist you with practical advice or a second opinion assessment on your troubles drops off dramatically.

 

As a forum moderator I will ask you to kindly tolerate differing points of view. Don't be dismissive of posts like Prime Suspect's. He's been around for awhile. Snoogans' viewpoint is equally valid. But, you cannot allow only the posts which agree with your point.

 

Did I call you a Nazi? Or did I refer to you as one of the thoughtful helpful people who made geocaching possible? You decide. Anyway, I've said my piece, I have little elce to add. I would just ask the reviewers to lighten up, and be more friendly, helpful and responsive in cases where a new cache may infringe on some rule you have.

 

Ok you have 2 caches that are not published. first one has this note on it.

 

Temporarily archiving awaiting response.

That tells me they did communicate with you. In fact the other reviewer note on that cache explains that your cache is being held up because you live a ways from the cache and the reviewer is concerned that its to far for you to properly maintain. Bad reviewer, wanting to prevent litter instead of letting you have your fun. Darn strict reviewer.

 

The only other cache you have that is archived was archived by you becasue it went missing. So thats not the problem. You have no disabled caches or caches pending listing so this is all about a cache that was two close, which you moved and by some miracle was listed by the bad reviewer and a cache that if you find a local to maintain it for you would also be listed by the Evil nasty reviewer.

 

Your TB is in a cache in Mexico and the hider lives far away in another country. The reviewer offered to list it if a local maintainer could be located and if the original contents could be adjusted. It seems it contained some fune items that the ridiculous guidelines do not allow.

 

Cache started out with everything you need for a romantic beach date (breath mints, folding brush, sunscreen, energy bar, hair clip, candels, a few dollars (sand & paper) and even some adult protection) Plus 2 TBs! What more could a GEO-Cacher on the prowl ask for????

Another case of an EVIL NASTY reviewer killing your fun for the sake of some petty guidelines like no food. Darn those pesky reviewers.

 

So I propose that we remove all reviewers and guidelines so that this open minded cacher can have his fun!

Edited May 20, 2006 by CO Admin

[+Mopar]

 

Ok you have 2 caches that are not published. first one has this note on it.

 

Temporarily archiving awaiting response.

That tells me they did communicate with you. In fact the other reviewer note on that cache explains that your cache is being held up because you live a ways from the cache and the reviewer is concerned that its to far for you to properly maintain. Bad reviewer, wanting to prevent litter instead of letting you have your fun. Darn strict reviewer.

 

The only other cache you have that is archived was archived by you becasue it went missing. So thats not the problem. You have no disabled caches or caches pending listing so this is all about a cache that was two close, which you moved and by some miracle was listed by the bad reviewer and a cache that if you find a local to maintain it for you would also be listed by the Evil nasty reviewer.

 

So I propose that we remove all reviewer and guidelines so that this open minded cacher can have his fun!

Ahh yes, the other side of the story.

 

Gotta love it.

 

Your TB is in a cache in Mexico and the hider lives far away in another country. The reviewer offered to list it if a local maintainer could be located and if the original contents could be adjusted. It seems it contained some fune items that the ridiculous guidelines do not allow.

 

Cache started out with everything you need for a romantic beach date (breath mints, folding brush, sunscreen, energy bar, hair clip, candels, a few dollars (sand & paper) and even some adult protection) Plus 2 TBs! What more could a GEO-Cacher on the prowl ask for????

 

WOW! A vacation cache filled with food, mints, melted candles, and condoms! I wasn't that far off.

Too bad about the 2 TBs. I suspect that even if a loca maintainer is found, the animals will have smelled the mints, food, and candles by now and destroyed the cache.

Unless of course it was an ammo can. And people who hide vacation caches full of stuff like that don't usually use ammo cans. Probably hidden in a take out food container or something.

Edited May 20, 2006 by Mopar

[Keystone]

Did I call you a Nazi? Or did I refer to you as one of the thoughtful helpful people who made geocaching possible? You decide.

Since I would have handled these situations in precisely the way that the responsible volunteers did, yes, you called me a Nazi.

 

And I'm getting pretty tired of that. Enjoy your forum thread.

[Varmint]

I have been having trouble getting my 1st Cache approved, it's in the median of an 8 lane freeway, I call it Frogger. Now I have to go retrieve it.....wish me luck.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Before continueing, let me express my accolades and sincere thanks for the thoughtful and hard work of the many volunteers who have made the geocaching possible. This letter is not for you. It is for the geo-nazi's.

 

Consider yourself lucky. If I were a moderator in this forum, this comment alone would have gotten you banned for at least a few days.

 

It's not only "over the top" but it's highly offensive.

 

You may want to keep things like this in mind when trying to rally support for your cause in the future.

[+IV_Warrior]

My concern is with what I consider to be arbitrary and narrow-minded decisions of geocaching reviewers. Two times now, reviewers have prevented me from publishing a cache. The first time because I made three caches within in a short period of time with similar names and descriptions. I don’t know why that was so unbelievable, but the reviewer blocked them, and would not respond to my explanations.

 

The clock is ticking on how long it take before we find out the real reason the caches were disallowed. We've only seen this about, oh, a thousand times before. "My cache was denied for [insert ridiculous reason here]!", only to find out the actual reason later on.

 

It sounds like your mind is made up. I'm guess that it would be a waste of my time to try to explain anything to you.

 

And it sounds like he was right. Now that the rest of the story is out, things look a lot different.

[+Captain Faisua]

and would not respond to my explanations.

 

Again, that reviewer would not respond to my queries.

 

And why do they have to make it so difficult to send them an email message? And why do they not respond to messages?

 

One other thing.

It's pretty unusual for them not to respond at all, especially on multiple cache hides at different times.

Usually when people post here they never got a reply from Groundspeak or the cache reviewers its because of one of the following reasons, not that they were being ignored.

 

Is it possible you either replied directly to the email you got when they left a note on your cache page? That comes from the GC.com email server, not the person posting the note. If you hit reply to that nobody will get the email.

 

If you replied to them on the cache page and they asked you to email them, it's possible they never even saw your reply.

 

It's possible you have a spam filter that is trapping their emails by mistake.

 

Just a few of the common reasons I've seen posted here over the years.

 

If memory serves, I could not just reply to a reviewers comments, but rather I had to click on the appropriate link on the cache page. I tried both, but got no response. My spam filter accepts all messages from geocaching.com, so I don't think that was the issue. Anyway, it was a frustrating experience.

[+CO Admin]

and would not respond to my explanations.

 

Again, that reviewer would not respond to my queries.

 

And why do they have to make it so difficult to send them an email message? And why do they not respond to messages?

 

One other thing.

It's pretty unusual for them not to respond at all, especially on multiple cache hides at different times.

Usually when people post here they never got a reply from Groundspeak or the cache reviewers its because of one of the following reasons, not that they were being ignored.

 

Is it possible you either replied directly to the email you got when they left a note on your cache page? That comes from the GC.com email server, not the person posting the note. If you hit reply to that nobody will get the email.

 

If you replied to them on the cache page and they asked you to email them, it's possible they never even saw your reply.

 

It's possible you have a spam filter that is trapping their emails by mistake.

 

Just a few of the common reasons I've seen posted here over the years.

 

If memory serves, I could not just reply to a reviewers comments, but rather I had to click on the appropriate link on the cache page. I tried both, but got no response. My spam filter accepts all messages from geocaching.com, so I don't think that was the issue. Anyway, it was a frustrating experience.

 

It frustrating to be called a Nazi too. How about a retraction on that comment. Since the problems with your caches were cause by your inability to follow the guidelines and not by an evil bad, nasty, no fun reviewer. When you attack on reviewer you attack us all. Follow the guidelines and you would not have this problem.

[+briansnat]

I have over 155 hides published by many different reviewrs and never had one questioned. Well OK one did come back because the maps showed RR tracks, but they were long gone and the cache was approved.

 

I think the fact that I read the guidelines and follow them is a big help.

 

The reviewers are there to publish caches. They are geocachers too and they want to publish caches. I'm sure

they're not turning down caches arbitrarily. Heck they usually review the state they live in and the more they publish, the more caches for them to find. If you adhere to the guidelines your cache will be published. Violate them or puch the line and you're going to have problems.

 

What I find odd is that you admit to violating the guidelines, then called the reviewer the foulest of names because he enforced them.

Edited May 20, 2006 by briansnat

[+Airmapper]

I've met my reviewer, he's a nice guy with a sense of humor. He questioned one of my caches, and that was cleared up in one E-mail after I described it, and that was on me for forgetting to add it into the reviewers note.

 

Without the reviewers geocaching would be a big mess, they make sure the guidelines are used, keeping this game enjoyable for everyone.

[+Snoogans]

I've met my reviewer, he's a nice guy with a sense of humor.

 

Without the reviewers geocaching would be a big mess, they make sure the guidelines are used, keeping this game enjoyable for everyone.

 

I get around to events all over and I have met more reviewers than I probably actually know and a few more that don't know that I know they're a reviewer. They are all nice people.

 

People is what we all are and we have good days and bad days. People lose sight of this fact when they hear the word "No."

 

Guidlines, to me, aren't meant to be rigid, but then, to me, a speed limit is just a suggestion. It's all in how things are interpreted. There in lies conflict.

 

No system is perfect, but if I wasn't willing to live with it, I guess I'd start my own cache listing site. My gc.com satisfaction level is about 97%.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Before continueing, let me express my accolades and sincere thanks for the thoughtful and hard work of the many volunteers who have made the geocaching possible. This letter is not for you. It is for the geo-nazi's.

 

My concern is with what I consider to be arbitrary and narrow-minded decisions of certain geocaching reviewers. Two times now, reviewers have prevented me from publishing a cache. The first time because I made three caches within in a short period of time with similar names and descriptions. I don’t know why that was so unbelievable, but the reviewer blocked them, and would not respond to my explanations.

 

Just recently, a reviewer disallowed my new cache because I had inadvertently placed it within 0.1 miles of another cache. That other cache was “temporarily unavailable” at the time, which is why it did not show up when I was researching my cache. Again, that reviewer would not respond to my queries. And the other cache remains "temporarily unavailable", and thus tieing up some prime geocaching real estate.

 

Now it appears that a geospider I released a couple years ago has met it’s death because someone placed it into a cache that a reviewer has prevented from being published. I had enjoyed watching that geospider as it moved from place to place. Now it appears it has gone south of the border permanently. My letter below describes the situation.

 

I hope that geocaching.com reviewers will lighten up and get off their high horses. And why do they have to make it so difficult to send them an email message? And why do they not respond to messages? If they continue their supercilious behavior, I fear that they will take the fun out of geocaching.

 

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

I sent this message to "steveandki";

 

Hello,

 

I am owner of the spider "Charlie I'm scared of the sea Tuna". According to the logs, you put this spider into a new cache you created called "Gato Del Mar". That cache has yet to be published, which I presume means that Charlie and the rest of the cache's contents will never see the light of day again.

 

This is unfortunate. I also have had trouble publishing a couple caches, due to the annoying and arbitrary decisions of a reviewer on Geocaching.com. In my case, the reviewer questioned the validity of my caches because I made several caches with similar sounding names and descriptions. Then the review would not respond to my explanations for that.

 

Anyway, I hope a similar fate has not prevented your cache and my geospider from death. Please let me know if you are successful in getting "Gato Del Mar" published.

 

-Captain Faisua

cc: Geocaching team.

 

First, allow me to point out that -- despite the name you have assigned to the thread -- your first post in the thread actually brings up several diverse issues, ones which are only barely related, if at all, to each other or to the stated thread subject title.

 

Next, allow me to point out that I feel that your latter issue -- the one about the geospider -- is hardly a reviewer issue, much less a "bad reviewer" issue, and also that:

• the issue will likely resolve itself over time
  
• if you do have a complaint or issue, it should be with the cache owner for leaving your spider in a chronically-unapproved cache, rather than with a reviewer
  

And, allow me to add my thanks and appreciation to all the volunteer reviewers out there who so unselfishly put their time and energy into this sport and game. Thank you!

[gerboa]

Strategy (seemingly) in Thai culture is to ignore anything unpleasant.

Can't say I wholly agree, but it can work wonderfully in certain situations...say the opening thread here.

[+Runaround]

This type of thread was entertaining the first 185 times it happened and guess what, it was entertaining again.

[+Tharagleb]

This type of thread was entertaining the first 185 times it happened and guess what, it was entertaining again.

 

Yeah, it's entertaining to see the OP shot down, you know it's coming, like a slow-motion train wreck. I just wish once the OP would come back and admit they were wrong. I'll probably never live to see it.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Actually it strikes me that the OP is largely the victim of his own ignorance.

He didn't realize that he had to account for a disabled cache, and he didn't realize that he could either 1) post a reviewer note, or 2) email the reviewer through their profile. Being pretty impatient he lost patience, rather than figure it out. Came here, got hammered pretty good and NOW doesn't know that he can lock the thread.

 

It was entertaining too.

Edited May 21, 2006 by Isonzo Karst

[+TEAM 360]

Intelligent and problem-solving dialogue all around, as usual...

[+bottlecap]

He didn't realize that he had to account for a disabled cache, and he didn't realize that he could either 1) post a reviewer note, or 2) email the reviewer through their profile. Being pretty impatient he lost patience, rather than figure it out. Came here, got hammered pretty good and NOW doesn't know that he can lock the thread.

 

Now don't go ruining the fun. This is becoming a great op bashing thread.

 

In all seriousness, the volunteers take time out of thier day to make Geocaching what it is, THANK YOU!

[+5¢]

Did I call you a Nazi? Or did I refer to you as one of the thoughtful helpful people who made geocaching possible? You decide.

Since I would have handled these situations in precisely the way that the responsible volunteers did, yes, you called me a Nazi.

 

And I'm getting pretty tired of that. Enjoy your forum thread.

 

Heil Keystone!

 

Wow, unless Keystone is an informative, nice, lead you in the right direction Nazi, I don't see the link.

[+Renegade Knight]

What was the question?

[+Prime Suspect]

The clock is ticking on how long it take before we find out the real reason the caches were disallowed. We've only seen this about, oh, a thousand times before. "My cache was denied for [insert ridiculous reason here]!", only to find out the actual reason later on.

It sounds like your mind is made up. I'm guess that it would be a waste of my time to try to explain anything to you.

And I'm stopping the clock at 12:41, with the Purple Pony's post. 48 minutes. Not a record, but not bad.

[+Team Muppet]

I don't usually add my two cents to something so enflamed (?), but I have to say that our BC reviewer is pretty darn good at replying to emails posted by newbies like Team Muppet. Our very first cache, and we got a little excited, and after 24hours, we emailed him to find out what was going on with it. He then directed us to the guidelines, and nicely informed us about the delay. Later that day, our cache was listed. Only one cache has had to move, and that was Kermit's fault.

 

Kudos to all reviewers...!!!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Ok you have 2 caches that are not published. first one has this note on it.

 

Temporarily archiving awaiting response.

That tells me they did communicate with you. In fact the other reviewer note on that cache explains that your cache is being held up because you live a ways from the cache and the reviewer is concerned that its to far for you to properly maintain. Bad reviewer, wanting to prevent litter instead of letting you have your fun. Darn strict reviewer.

 

The only other cache you have that is archived was archived by you becasue it went missing. So thats not the problem. You have no disabled caches or caches pending listing so this is all about a cache that was two close, which you moved and by some miracle was listed by the bad reviewer and a cache that if you find a local to maintain it for you would also be listed by the Evil nasty reviewer.

 

Your TB is in a cache in Mexico and the hider lives far away in another country. The reviewer offered to list it if a local maintainer could be located and if the original contents could be adjusted. It seems it contained some fune items that the ridiculous guidelines do not allow.

 

Cache started out with everything you need for a romantic beach date (breath mints, folding brush, sunscreen, energy bar, hair clip, candels, a few dollars (sand & paper) and even some adult protection) Plus 2 TBs! What more could a GEO-Cacher on the prowl ask for????

Another case of an EVIL NASTY reviewer killing your fun for the sake of some petty guidelines like no food. Darn those pesky reviewers.

 

So I propose that we remove all reviewers and guidelines so that this open minded cacher can have his fun!

 

COAdmin, thank you much for taking the time to do this research, and for shedding far more light on this murky (and rather suspicious from the start) situation! I appreciate the insights and background. And, by the way, I agree with your observations! Thanks!

[Clan Riffster]

Mornin' Captain!

I learned a while back that the best thing to do when you find yourself in a hole, is stop digging.

Coming on to the forums and openly calling a reviewer, any reviewer, a Nazi, is hopping into a big hole. Personally I think an apology is in order, but I'm not your Dad, or your boss, so you do what you think is right. I'm still fairly new at this game, so I can't claim lots of experience, but the few issues I've had with my caches, (issues caused by my not paying enough careful attention to the guidelines), have all been resolved in a professional, courteous, even friendly manner.

 

BTW, did you ever hear from steveandki personally?

[+gumbyatl92]

To address the issue in this thread of reviewers being too strict with the guidelines (i call them sticklers not nazis) i have my own example of an unpublished cache. Put me in my place if i'm wrong.

 

I tried to publish a podcache which required viewing an external webage of my own. You have to listen to some audio to find the cache. The reviewers killed the cache because my site had 2 google ads at the bottom. I took the ads off but they still refused to publish the cache because there were links on the page that led to other pages which had small advertisements on the bottom. I just gave up, i cant redesign an entire website so that reviewers wont come in contact with inconcspicuously placed google ads. It just seemed like a slightly too literal interpretation of the rules. I'm not trying to sell products through the geocaching website, thepage just happened to have 2 ads at the bottom (which i removed).

 

I can see how you can interpret the guidelines in this way but reviewers are there to judge on the spirit of the rules. This is isnt some awful government bereuacracy and it seems that sometimes we can lose sight of this. I don't think my cache was harmful or offensive to the geocaching community and I think that is what matters

Edited May 22, 2006 by gumbyatl92

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

To address the issue in this thread of reviewers being too strict with the guidelines (i call them sticklers not nazis) i have my own example of an unpublished cache. Put me in my place if i'm wrong.

 

I tried to publish a podcache which required viewing an external webage of my own. You have to listen to some audio to find the cache. The reviewers killed the cache because my site had 2 google ads at the bottom. I took the ads off but they still refused to publish the cache because there were links on the page that led to other pages which had small advertisements on the bottom. I just gave up, i cant redesign an entire website so that reviewers wont come in contact with inconcspicuously placed google ads. It just seemed like a slightly too literal interpretation of the rules. I'm not trying to sell products through the geocaching website, thepage just happened to have 2 ads at the bottom (which i removed).

 

I can see how you can interpret the guidelines in this way but reviewers are there to judge on the spirit of the rules. This is isnt some awful government bereuacracy and it seems that sometimes we can lose sight of this. I don't think my cache was harmful or offensive to the geocaching community and I think that is what matters

I am confused by your post. I have created hundreds of websites, both for myself and for friends and clients, over the years, and thus I am rather familiar with the mechanics of reserving domain names, creating HTML pages, and with website hosting. How hard would it have been for you to have removed ALL links to other pages containing ads from your webpage? Sounds like you may have had some agenda here which you have not disclosed.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Prime Suspect]

To address the issue in this thread of reviewers being too strict with the guidelines (i call them sticklers not nazis) i have my own example of an unpublished cache. Put me in my place if i'm wrong.

 

I tried to publish a podcache which required viewing an external webage of my own. You have to listen to some audio to find the cache. The reviewers killed the cache because my site had 2 google ads at the bottom. I took the ads off but they still refused to publish the cache because there were links on the page that led to other pages which had small advertisements on the bottom. I just gave up, i cant redesign an entire website so that reviewers wont come in contact with inconcspicuously placed google ads. It just seemed like a slightly too literal interpretation of the rules. I'm not trying to sell products through the geocaching website, thepage just happened to have 2 ads at the bottom (which i removed).

 

I can see how you can interpret the guidelines in this way but reviewers are there to judge on the spirit of the rules. This is isnt some awful government bereuacracy and it seems that sometimes we can lose sight of this. I don't think my cache was harmful or offensive to the geocaching community and I think that is what matters

 

Let's see. Your cache pages, with Google ads on them. And I'm guessing that you get the money from those ads, right?

 

Where you do draw the line between that, and someone making you go to the website for their furniture store (This Sunday Only! SALE! SALE! SALE!) in order to get the info for a cache page?

 

I just gave up, i cant redesign an entire website so that reviewers wont come in contact with inconcspicuously placed google ads.

It's trivial to set up a stand-alone page.

[+gumbyatl92]

To address the issue in this thread of reviewers being too strict with the guidelines (i call them sticklers not nazis) i have my own example of an unpublished cache. Put me in my place if i'm wrong.

 

I tried to publish a podcache which required viewing an external webage of my own. You have to listen to some audio to find the cache. The reviewers killed the cache because my site had 2 google ads at the bottom. I took the ads off but they still refused to publish the cache because there were links on the page that led to other pages which had small advertisements on the bottom. I just gave up, i cant redesign an entire website so that reviewers wont come in contact with inconcspicuously placed google ads. It just seemed like a slightly too literal interpretation of the rules. I'm not trying to sell products through the geocaching website, thepage just happened to have 2 ads at the bottom (which i removed).

 

I can see how you can interpret the guidelines in this way but reviewers are there to judge on the spirit of the rules. This is isnt some awful government bereuacracy and it seems that sometimes we can lose sight of this. I don't think my cache was harmful or offensive to the geocaching community and I think that is what matters

I am confused by your post. I have created hundreds of wesites, both for myself and for friends and clients, over the years, and thus I am rather familiar with the mechanics of reserving domain names, creating HTML pages, and with website hosting. How hard would it have been for you to have removed ALL links to other pages containing ads from your webpage? Sounds like you may have had some agenda here which you have not disclosed.

 

The problem is that I have an incredibly minimal knowledge of web design. I use a template app and an ftp app. I honestly don't know how to set up a stand alone page w/o gettign a new domain and it takes alot of time for me to reformat all the pages, publish to a folder, and then upload them. It's not that I don't have the time, it's that it's hard to find the time to waste reformatting a website just to get one cache posted.

 

As for my hidden agenda, we thought it would be cool if we could make a couple bucks from google adsense, and maybe buy a 6-pack. We put a lot of work into making our podcast episodes and thoguht it would be nice to have a little $ for a celebration after we finish each movie. We grossed about $4.50 a month from the adsense so it isnt much of a celebration

 

and btw we have since bowed down and removed the ads and i will be resubmitting the cache. I'm just a little burned by the whole thing. Feel free to check out www.gacaching.com to see what the site is actually all about.

Edited May 22, 2006 by gumbyatl92

[+graylling]

To address the issue in this thread of reviewers being too strict with the guidelines (i call them sticklers not nazis) i have my own example of an unpublished cache. Put me in my place if i'm wrong.

 

I tried to publish a podcache which required viewing an external webage of my own. You have to listen to some audio to find the cache. The reviewers killed the cache because my site had 2 google ads at the bottom. I took the ads off but they still refused to publish the cache because there were links on the page that led to other pages which had small advertisements on the bottom. I just gave up, i cant redesign an entire website so that reviewers wont come in contact with inconcspicuously placed google ads. It just seemed like a slightly too literal interpretation of the rules. I'm not trying to sell products through the geocaching website, thepage just happened to have 2 ads at the bottom (which i removed).

 

I can see how you can interpret the guidelines in this way but reviewers are there to judge on the spirit of the rules. This is isnt some awful government bereuacracy and it seems that sometimes we can lose sight of this. I don't think my cache was harmful or offensive to the geocaching community and I think that is what matters

I am confused by your post. I have created hundreds of wesites, both for myself and for friends and clients, over the years, and thus I am rather familiar with the mechanics of reserving domain names, creating HTML pages, and with website hosting. How hard would it have been for you to have removed ALL links to other pages containing ads from your webpage? Sounds like you may have had some agenda here which you have not disclosed.

 

I agree, it would be simplicity to come up with a web page that has no ads or links to other pages with ads. It's only necessary to have the ingredients for the puzzle on the page..

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

. . .I took the ads off but they still refused to publish the cache because there were links on the page that led to other pages which had small advertisements on the bottom. I just gave up, i cant redesign an entire website so that reviewers wont come in contact with inconcspicuously placed google ads. It just seemed like a slightly too literal interpretation of the rules. I'm not trying to sell products through the geocaching website, thepage just happened to have 2 ads at the bottom (which i removed).

 

I can see how you can interpret the guidelines in this way but reviewers are there to judge on the spirit of the rules. This is isnt some awful government bereuacracy and it seems that sometimes we can lose sight of this. I don't think my cache was harmful or offensive to the geocaching community and I think that is what matters

I am confused by your post. I have created hundreds of websites, both for myself and for friends and clients, over the years, and thus I am rather familiar with the mechanics of reserving domain names, creating HTML pages, and with website hosting. How hard would it have been for you to have removed ALL links to other pages containing ads from your webpage? Sounds like you may have had some agenda here which you have not disclosed.

I agree, it would be simplicity to come up with a web page that has no ads or links to other pages with ads. It's only necessary to have the ingredients for the puzzle on the page..

Yes, it takes all of 50 seconds to create a nice little clean barebones stand-alone page (it can be tucked into any existing website that one owns, as a matter of fact) containing only the info needed for the puzzle or riddle and nothing else. I have done this several times for our Psycho caches, and the total time required, including FTP upload time, was under 4 mintues. Not sure what the drama was all about.

[Keystone]

To address the issue in this thread of reviewers being too strict with the guidelines (i call them sticklers not nazis) i have my own example of an unpublished cache. Put me in my place if i'm wrong.

 

I tried to publish a podcache which required viewing an external webage of my own. You have to listen to some audio to find the cache. The reviewers killed the cache because my site had 2 google ads at the bottom. I took the ads off but they still refused to publish the cache because there were links on the page that led to other pages which had small advertisements on the bottom. I just gave up, i cant redesign an entire website so that reviewers wont come in contact with inconcspicuously placed google ads. It just seemed like a slightly too literal interpretation of the rules. I'm not trying to sell products through the geocaching website, thepage just happened to have 2 ads at the bottom (which i removed).

 

I can see how you can interpret the guidelines in this way but reviewers are there to judge on the spirit of the rules. This is isnt some awful government bereuacracy and it seems that sometimes we can lose sight of this. I don't think my cache was harmful or offensive to the geocaching community and I think that is what matters

I am confused by your post. I have created hundreds of wesites, both for myself and for friends and clients, over the years, and thus I am rather familiar with the mechanics of reserving domain names, creating HTML pages, and with website hosting. How hard would it have been for you to have removed ALL links to other pages containing ads from your webpage? Sounds like you may have had some agenda here which you have not disclosed.

 

The problem is that I have an incredibly minimal knowledge of web design. I use a template app and an ftp app. I honestly don't know how to set up a stand alone page w/o gettign a new domain and it takes alot of time for me to reformat all the pages, publish to a folder, and then upload them. It's not that I don't have the time, it's that it's hard to find the time to waste reformatting a website just to get one cache posted.

 

As for my hidden agenda, we thought it would be cool if we could make a couple bucks from google adsense, and maybe buy a 6-pack. We put a lot of work into making our podcast episodes and thoguht it would be nice to have a little $ for a celebration after we finish each movie. We grossed about $4.50 a month from the adsense so it isnt much of a celebration

 

and btw we have since bowed down and removed the ads and i will be resubmitting the cache. I'm just a little burned by the whole thing. Feel free to check out www.gacaching.com to see what the site is actually all about.

I can see where readers might have some sympathy based upon the situation you narrated. Here is what I see from the cache page. The reviewer left the following note:

 

Hi,

Thanks for your cache submission. I look forward to publishing it, however you will first have to do two things.

First, e-mail a link to your cache page to contact@Groundspeak.com as it appears to be in conflict to the geocaching guideline prohibiting commercial content: (visit link)

Your website solicits contributions, and appears to require downloading iTunes. For that reason I'd like the management of this website to OK your cache page.

 

Secondly, please post a "note to reviewer" with the actual coordinates of your cache. That ensures that the location fits the geocaching guidelines, is not too close to another cache, and that future caches won't be placed too close to yours.

 

He did not say that the cache couldn't be published, just that you needed to clear it with Groundspeak. That is what we are instructed to do. Some caches get the thumbs up, some are denied. Did you follow up with Groundspeak, and if so, what did they tell you? All I can see from the cache page is that you archived your own cache two days later. Then you left a reviewer note suggesting some changes. Did you also send an e-mail to your reviewer? His instructions say that e-mail is the preferred form of contact. He may never have known about the changes you were suggesting.

 

I also don't see where you ever specified the coordinates where the cache is located. A cache cannot be published without the actual location being recorded for later reference.

[+gumbyatl92]

and in response to prime suspect:

 

Personally i draw the line at blatant sales or advertising. If I clicked on a link to a cache and it was just a site selling washing machines then i would have a problem. Or even a site selling geocoins for that matter.

 

Podcacher is a great example. please visit this cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c2&Submit6=Find

 

they have a link to a site that you must visit. The site has both a donation button and a google adsense but does not offend me in any manner or fashion (and was published even though it has the same set-up as mine).

[+gumbyatl92]

To address the issue in this thread of reviewers being too strict with the guidelines (i call them sticklers not nazis) i have my own example of an unpublished cache. Put me in my place if i'm wrong.

 

I tried to publish a podcache which required viewing an external webage of my own. You have to listen to some audio to find the cache. The reviewers killed the cache because my site had 2 google ads at the bottom. I took the ads off but they still refused to publish the cache because there were links on the page that led to other pages which had small advertisements on the bottom. I just gave up, i cant redesign an entire website so that reviewers wont come in contact with inconcspicuously placed google ads. It just seemed like a slightly too literal interpretation of the rules. I'm not trying to sell products through the geocaching website, thepage just happened to have 2 ads at the bottom (which i removed).

 

I can see how you can interpret the guidelines in this way but reviewers are there to judge on the spirit of the rules. This is isnt some awful government bereuacracy and it seems that sometimes we can lose sight of this. I don't think my cache was harmful or offensive to the geocaching community and I think that is what matters

I am confused by your post. I have created hundreds of wesites, both for myself and for friends and clients, over the years, and thus I am rather familiar with the mechanics of reserving domain names, creating HTML pages, and with website hosting. How hard would it have been for you to have removed ALL links to other pages containing ads from your webpage? Sounds like you may have had some agenda here which you have not disclosed.

 

The problem is that I have an incredibly minimal knowledge of web design. I use a template app and an ftp app. I honestly don't know how to set up a stand alone page w/o gettign a new domain and it takes alot of time for me to reformat all the pages, publish to a folder, and then upload them. It's not that I don't have the time, it's that it's hard to find the time to waste reformatting a website just to get one cache posted.

 

As for my hidden agenda, we thought it would be cool if we could make a couple bucks from google adsense, and maybe buy a 6-pack. We put a lot of work into making our podcast episodes and thoguht it would be nice to have a little $ for a celebration after we finish each movie. We grossed about $4.50 a month from the adsense so it isnt much of a celebration

 

and btw we have since bowed down and removed the ads and i will be resubmitting the cache. I'm just a little burned by the whole thing. Feel free to check out www.gacaching.com to see what the site is actually all about.

I can see where readers might have some sympathy based upon the situation you narrated. Here is what I see from the cache page. The reviewer left the following note:

 

Hi,

Thanks for your cache submission. I look forward to publishing it, however you will first have to do two things.

First, e-mail a link to your cache page to contact@Groundspeak.com as it appears to be in conflict to the geocaching guideline prohibiting commercial content: (visit link)

Your website solicits contributions, and appears to require downloading iTunes. For that reason I'd like the management of this website to OK your cache page.

 

Secondly, please post a "note to reviewer" with the actual coordinates of your cache. That ensures that the location fits the geocaching guidelines, is not too close to another cache, and that future caches won't be placed too close to yours.

 

He did not say that the cache couldn't be published, just that you needed to clear it with Groundspeak. That is what we are instructed to do. Some caches get the thumbs up, some are denied. Did you follow up with Groundspeak, and if so, what did they tell you? All I can see from the cache page is that you archived your own cache two days later. Then you left a reviewer note suggesting some changes. Did you also send an e-mail to your reviewer? His instructions say that e-mail is the preferred form of contact. He may never have known about the changes you were suggesting.

 

I also don't see where you ever specified the coordinates where the cache is located. A cache cannot be published without the actual location being recorded for later reference.

 

I did follow up and asked for a second opinion. The person that contacted me was by e-mail and not the original reviewer and was the second opinion. He was the one that told me that i would have to remove all links to sites with advertisements as well as some issues with the geocaching logo (those were my fault though). This part further irritated me because at first i was told to just remove ads from that page. Then I was told to remove ads from all of my pages and they also seemed to have a problem with me mentioning the use of an ipod and itunes, which is by far the best way to view this podcache because an ipod will allow you to view pictures along with the audio that help guide you to the cache. This is when i gave up because i felt like i was being dragged through hoops.

 

p.s.

 

i believe i posted the final coords as a reviewer not but it may have been via e-mail to the reviewer.

Edited May 22, 2006 by gumbyatl92

[+Renegade Knight]

...I tried to publish a podcache which required viewing an external webage of my own. You have to listen to some audio to find the cache. The reviewers killed the cache because my site had 2 google ads at the bottom. I took the ads off but they still refused to publish the cache because there were links on the page that led to other pages which had small advertisements on the bottom. I just gave up, i cant redesign an entire website so that reviewers wont come in contact with inconcspicuously placed google ads. It just seemed like a slightly too literal interpretation of the rules. I'm not trying to sell products through the geocaching website, thepage just happened to have 2 ads at the bottom (which i removed).

 

I can see how you can interpret the guidelines in this way but reviewers are there to judge on the spirit of the rules. This is isnt some awful government bereuacracy and it seems that sometimes we can lose sight of this. I don't think my cache was harmful or offensive to the geocaching community and I think that is what matters

 

If the purpose of using the website was free space for the pod cast then the cache was fine. If the purpose of the pod cast and cache was to direct traffic to the google adds that's another.

 

Reviewers split hairs differently. Free web space has a price. That price is usally ads. Bad capatalist system bad.

[+Renegade Knight]

...He did not say that the cache couldn't be published, just that you needed to clear it with Groundspeak. That is what we are instructed to do. Some caches get the thumbs up, some are denied. Did you follow up with Groundspeak, and if so, what did they tell you? All I can see from the cache page is that you archived your own cache two days later. Then you left a reviewer note suggesting some changes. Did you also send an e-mail to your reviewer? His instructions say that e-mail is the preferred form of contact. He may never have known about the changes you were suggesting....

 

Why don't you guys run these things up the flagpole instead of leaving it to the cache owner? At least half the cases that get brough up in the forums are communiations problems. If you run it up the flagpole then you as an approver will start getting better insight as to what's good and what's not. Things would get lost in translation otherwise.

[+briansnat]

...He did not say that the cache couldn't be published, just that you needed to clear it with Groundspeak. That is what we are instructed to do. Some caches get the thumbs up, some are denied. Did you follow up with Groundspeak, and if so, what did they tell you? All I can see from the cache page is that you archived your own cache two days later. Then you left a reviewer note suggesting some changes. Did you also send an e-mail to your reviewer? His instructions say that e-mail is the preferred form of contact. He may never have known about the changes you were suggesting....

 

Why don't you guys run these things up the flagpole instead of leaving it to the cache owner? At least half the cases that get brough up in the forums are communiations problems. If you run it up the flagpole then you as an approver will start getting better insight as to what's good and what's not. Things would get lost in translation otherwise.

 

I'm willing to bet reviewers deal with hundreds of caches every month and have enough work to do without having to do each cache owner's legwork. Should they also be contacting parks for permission? They'll certainly have a better insight as to what the various park rules are.

[+gumbyatl92]

Why don't you guys run these things up the flagpole instead of leaving it to the cache owner? At least half the cases that get brough up in the forums are communiations problems. If you run it up the flagpole then you as an approver will start getting better insight as to what's good and what's not. Things would get lost in translation otherwise.

 

I'm willing to bet reviewers deal with hundreds of caches every month and have enough work to do without having to do each cache owner's legwork. Should they also be contacting parks for permission? They'll certainly have a better insight as to what the various park rules are.

 

Speaking of communication im confused as what these two posts are actually saying. The response doesnt seem to make any sense to me.