Who determines the cache ratings and size?

[+Team_Vod]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

[+L0ne.R]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

On the submission form you will see links to the rating chart. Use it to determine your D/T rating.

 

 

[Pup Patrol]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Pup Patrol

[+Team_Vod]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

[Pup Patrol]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

Um, yeah.

 

Been that way for a few years now.

 

B.

[+Team_Vod]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

Um, yeah.

 

Been that way for a few years now.

 

B.

 

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

Edited May 23, 2016 by SUX_VR_40_Rider

[+narcissa]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

They're volunteers. Having them visit each cache would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming.

 

Don't lie to cache reviewers.

[Pup Patrol]

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

 

Well, to be published on Groundspeak's site, yes, there are Guidelines that must be followed.

 

Reviewers must know the Guidelines inside and out.

 

And they must be well-versed in local and national land manager policies.

 

And local laws and bylaws.

 

Then there's the whole EarthCache thingy.

 

B.

[+narcissa]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

Um, yeah.

 

Been that way for a few years now.

 

B.

 

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

 

Because land owners and land managers need to trust that there is some degree of oversight or else they will ban geocaching on their lands.

 

Please let us know how you intend to fund a system where reviewers physically confirm caches.

Edited May 23, 2016 by narcissa

[+noncentric]

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

I think "blindly" is a bit extreme. The Reviewers review the listing to ensure it doesn't violate the listing guidelines, but they do not go out to visit the cache location and confirm that the listing matches the physical cache.

 

It's up to the community to regulate itself in regards to things that seem amiss 'in the field'. If a cacher finds a cache that violates guidelines, then they can 'report' the cache directly to a Reviewer or log a Needs Archive. For example, if a property owner accosts a cacher and tells them that the cache is on their private property without permission. In such cases, a cache finder should log an NA.

 

The 'honor system' is used. Groundspeak, and its Reviewers, assume that CO's do not present false information in their cache listings. When cachers submit a geocache, then they must agree to the following:

 

It's worth explaining that geocaching.com is a listing service. Groundspeak does not 'own' the geocaches listed on their site. They do provide the website listing, retain the log/photo data for those listings, and provide ways to search/download the various listings on their website. Each CO owns their own geocache(s). A CO could put a geocache inside a grocery store and tell other cachers about it, but that geocache would not be allowed to be listed on Groundspeak's geocaching.com website.

[+Team_Vod]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

Um, yeah.

 

Been that way for a few years now.

 

B.

 

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

 

Because land owners and land managers need to trust that there is some degree of oversight or else they will ban geocaching on their lands.

 

Please let us know how you intend to fund a system where reviewers physically confirm caches.

 

No funding needed so it can still be voluntary. But perhaps the guidelines should change to require a reviewer who resides in an immediate geographical area. For example I live in Sioux City, Iowa. This area has 3 river valleys, one of them major, at least one major creek valley, the Loess Hills, 4 counties, 3 states, and no less than 6 cities/towns in the immediate 15 mile radius. It would not be difficult to assign reviewers to this area who would visit the cache locations prior to publishing them or when an NA is reported visit the cache locations to determine if it does indeed need to be archived, etc. When a reviewer steps down, moves out of the area or passes away the duty is assigned/passed on to someone else who is willing to step up and do so.

[+Team_Vod]

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

I think "blindly" is a bit extreme. The Reviewers review the listing to ensure it doesn't violate the listing guidelines, but they do not go out to visit the cache location and confirm that the listing matches the physical cache.

 

It's up to the community to regulate itself in regards to things that seem amiss 'in the field'. If a cacher finds a cache that violates guidelines, then they can 'report' the cache directly to a Reviewer or log a Needs Archive. For example, if a property owner accosts a cacher and tells them that the cache is on their private property without permission. In such cases, a cache finder should log an NA.

 

The 'honor system' is used. Groundspeak, and its Reviewers, assume that CO's do not present false information in their cache listings. When cachers submit a geocache, then they must agree to the following:

 

It's worth explaining that geocaching.com is a listing service. Groundspeak does not 'own' the geocaches listed on their site. They do provide the website listing, retain the log/photo data for those listings, and provide ways to search/download the various listings on their website. Each CO owns their own geocache(s). A CO could put a geocache inside a grocery store and tell other cachers about it, but that geocache would not be allowed to be listed on Groundspeak's geocaching.com website.

 

Even though I am still new at this I think I can safely say I have seen what happens when something like this is left to be self regulated/governed. I think some measure of minor control needs to be implemented as I think it would make for a far better geocaching experience for all.

[+noncentric]

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

How are cachers going to ensure that their caches are the minimum distance apart? Let's say Jack and Jill go out on Saturday and each one puts a cache in the same park. Jack puts his under the bench near the home team's dugout. Jill puts hers under the bench near the visiting team's dugout. They self-publish their caches on the same day and then realize their caches are too close. Which of them will remove their cache? And then let's consider that Joe has also hidden the final to his Mystery cache under the same bench as Jack used.

 

If cachers can self-publish, then how many cache listings will we have where someone says 'go into the store and talk to the cashier to find the location of the cache'? These listings are currently not allowed on geocaching.com because of the 'Solicitation and Commercial Content' guidelines.

 

There are multiple things that the Reviewers check for before publishing a cache. You may want to read through the listing guidelines to get a sense of what those things are.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own?

 

Reviewers look at Guidelines issues, including property ownership and proximity to schools, railroads, and airports. Also, proximity to other caches.

 

Usually they also catch obvious issues made by COs such as impossible locations, although this is limited to the accuracy of Google maps.

 

When you say "valid" and "legit" do you mean "the cache page is accurate" or "the cache is really in place at those coords"? Those two things are not the same.

 

Some COs unfortunately consistently overrate or underate D/T. Sometimes they are receptive to seeker feedback, sometimes they don't.

[+narcissa]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

Um, yeah.

 

Been that way for a few years now.

 

B.

 

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

 

Because land owners and land managers need to trust that there is some degree of oversight or else they will ban geocaching on their lands.

 

Please let us know how you intend to fund a system where reviewers physically confirm caches.

 

No funding needed so it can still be voluntary. But perhaps the guidelines should change to require a reviewer who resides in an immediate geographical area. For example I live in Sioux City, Iowa. This area has 3 river valleys, one of them major, at least one major creek valley, the Loess Hills, 4 counties, 3 states, and no less than 6 cities/towns in the immediate 15 mile radius. It would not be difficult to assign reviewers to this area who would visit the cache locations prior to publishing them or when an NA is reported visit the cache locations to determine if it does indeed need to be archived, etc. When a reviewer steps down, moves out of the area or passes away the duty is assigned/passed on to someone else who is willing to step up and do so.

 

How do you propose we pay for this expanded army of reviewers who need to be trained? Who pays their travel expenses?

[+barefootjeff]

The reviewers' role is to catch honest mistakes, oversights and misconceptions, as well as check things like proximity to multi and mystery physical stages that the applicant can't see. No system will ever stop the dishonest hider.

 

My reviewer covers some 800,000 square kilometres of territory and publishes many hundreds of new caches a week. Even with an orbiting star ship able to beam him to wherever he wanted to go, it'd still be an onerous task to visit each cache site.

 

Sometimes you just have to take people at face value and rely on the community at large to weed out the ones that betray that trust. By and large the system works well.

[+narcissa]

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

I think "blindly" is a bit extreme. The Reviewers review the listing to ensure it doesn't violate the listing guidelines, but they do not go out to visit the cache location and confirm that the listing matches the physical cache.

 

It's up to the community to regulate itself in regards to things that seem amiss 'in the field'. If a cacher finds a cache that violates guidelines, then they can 'report' the cache directly to a Reviewer or log a Needs Archive. For example, if a property owner accosts a cacher and tells them that the cache is on their private property without permission. In such cases, a cache finder should log an NA.

 

The 'honor system' is used. Groundspeak, and its Reviewers, assume that CO's do not present false information in their cache listings. When cachers submit a geocache, then they must agree to the following:

 

It's worth explaining that geocaching.com is a listing service. Groundspeak does not 'own' the geocaches listed on their site. They do provide the website listing, retain the log/photo data for those listings, and provide ways to search/download the various listings on their website. Each CO owns their own geocache(s). A CO could put a geocache inside a grocery store and tell other cachers about it, but that geocache would not be allowed to be listed on Groundspeak's geocaching.com website.

 

Even though I am still new at this I think I can safely say I have seen what happens when something like this is left to be self regulated/governed. I think some measure of minor control needs to be implemented as I think it would make for a far better geocaching experience for all.

 

I am sure that a site that charges geocachers $1000 a year to pay for this scheme would provide a great experience. Let us know how that goes when you launch it.

[Pup Patrol]

Reviewers do a lot more than publish (or decline) geocaches. Like that doesn't take enough of their time, they also communicate with geocachers regarding new cache submissions, review Needs Archive logs, answer questions and provide help to geocachers, etc, etc.

 

and if you're lucky...they attend Events.

 

And if they're lucky and have a bit of spare time...they find geocaches.

 

And hide/maintain caches.

 

Some Reviewers are also forum moderators. Watching for Forum Guidelines violations, answering questions, moving topics to the correct subforums.

 

All of that on top of their non-geocaching life...jobs, family, community commitments, other hobbies.

 

B.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Pup Patrol

[+Team_Vod]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

Um, yeah.

 

Been that way for a few years now.

 

B.

 

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

 

Because land owners and land managers need to trust that there is some degree of oversight or else they will ban geocaching on their lands.

 

Please let us know how you intend to fund a system where reviewers physically confirm caches.

 

No funding needed so it can still be voluntary. But perhaps the guidelines should change to require a reviewer who resides in an immediate geographical area. For example I live in Sioux City, Iowa. This area has 3 river valleys, one of them major, at least one major creek valley, the Loess Hills, 4 counties, 3 states, and no less than 6 cities/towns in the immediate 15 mile radius. It would not be difficult to assign reviewers to this area who would visit the cache locations prior to publishing them or when an NA is reported visit the cache locations to determine if it does indeed need to be archived, etc. When a reviewer steps down, moves out of the area or passes away the duty is assigned/passed on to someone else who is willing to step up and do so.

 

How do you propose we pay for this expanded army of reviewers who need to be trained? Who pays their travel expenses?

 

I never said an army of reviewers. One or two volunteers who live in their respective geographical area who are also experienced cachers. Therefore no training necessary as the training comes from them being well versed in the guidelines and with participating in geocaching themselves. For example in my area one or two well experienced geocachers would be enough, so hardly an army. They would also understand it is a voluntary position so no money will be paid for such duties. But one requirement would be they have to reside or live in the area they serve as a reviewer for. So no travel outside of their immediate area is required but at the same time they are not allowed to review caches for publication on the other side of their state. A reviewer from that area would have to do so.

Edited May 23, 2016 by SUX_VR_40_Rider

[+niraD]

I never said an army of reviewers. One or two volunteers who live in their respective geographical area who are also experienced cachers. Therefore no training necessary as the training comes from them being well versed in the guidelines and with participating in geocaching themselves. For example in my area one or two well experienced geocachers would be enough, so hardly an army.

Where to begin...

 

Do you have any idea how large a territory most volunteer reviewers cover? Let's just say that it's orders of magnitude larger than the territory any FTF-hound could cover.

 

So we'd need orders of magnitude more volunteer reviewers. And they certainly would need training. Even with the current (tiny, compared to your proposal) number of volunteer reviewers, there are occasional issues with inconsistent interpretation/enforcement of the guidelines.

 

And of course, the current goal of an initial review within a week would be completely impossible under your proposal.

 

And what exactly is the problem you're trying to solve, that isn't being addressed by the current system?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I never said an army of reviewers. One or two volunteers who live in their respective geographical area who are also experienced cachers. Therefore no training necessary as the training comes from them being well versed in the guidelines and with participating in geocaching themselves. For example in my area one or two well experienced geocachers would be enough, so hardly an army. They would also understand it is a voluntary position so no money will be paid for such duties. But one requirement would be they have to reside or live in the area they serve as a reviewer for. So no travel outside of their immediate area is required but at the same time they are not allowed to review caches for publication on the other side of their state. A reviewer from that area would have to do so.

 

So, how far should we require these volunteers to travel to verify every cache submission/issue and how quickly can we demand that they respond? Reviewers kids are sick? Too bad, I want my cache published so call a babysitter and go check out the location. No gas money? Get another job and make sure my location gets checked on as you travel from one job to the other. Tired? Come on, lazy...get off your butt and publish my cache!

 

If they get a cache submission every day of the week, are they allowed to wait until a convenient time to take a look and decide if the cache is worth publishing or do they have to run out every time a cache is submitted? Or do they group it all into one hectic day, a day which could be spent doing things with their families, doing needed yardwork or out geocaching themselves? And God forbid they would ever want to take a vacation themselves or just take a day off and watch the grass grow.

 

How about large cities? One or two guys might handle something out in Iowa but two people in NYC or Chicago would be out checking on caches so often, they'd never be home to actually hit the publish button.

 

I think the system works pretty darn well as it is. If you're seeing problem caches getting published, the blame goes to the CO who either lied or omitted information, not to the reviewer. While having local cache publishers MIGHT keep the guideline breaking caches from getting published (if, you know, local politics didn't get involved), it would doom the game. It wouldn't take long before everyone would want nothing to do with publishing caches.

[+Team_Vod]

I never said an army of reviewers. One or two volunteers who live in their respective geographical area who are also experienced cachers. Therefore no training necessary as the training comes from them being well versed in the guidelines and with participating in geocaching themselves. For example in my area one or two well experienced geocachers would be enough, so hardly an army.

Where to begin...

 

Do you have any idea how large a territory most volunteer reviewers cover? Let's just say that it's orders of magnitude larger than the territory any FTF-hound could cover.

 

So we'd need orders of magnitude more volunteer reviewers. And they certainly would need training. Even with the current (tiny, compared to your proposal) number of volunteer reviewers, there are occasional issues with inconsistent interpretation/enforcement of the guidelines.

 

And of course, the current goal of an initial review within a week would be completely impossible under your proposal.

 

And what exactly is the problem you're trying to solve, that isn't being addressed by the current system?

 

Pr....oh never mind, you wouldn't understand what I mean by it anyway.

Edited May 23, 2016 by SUX_VR_40_Rider

[+colleda]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

Um, yeah.

 

Been that way for a few years now.

 

B.

 

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

 

Because land owners and land managers need to trust that there is some degree of oversight or else they will ban geocaching on their lands.

 

Please let us know how you intend to fund a system where reviewers physically confirm caches.

 

No funding needed so it can still be voluntary. But perhaps the guidelines should change to require a reviewer who resides in an immediate geographical area. For example I live in Sioux City, Iowa. This area has 3 river valleys, one of them major, at least one major creek valley, the Loess Hills, 4 counties, 3 states, and no less than 6 cities/towns in the immediate 15 mile radius. It would not be difficult to assign reviewers to this area who would visit the cache locations prior to publishing them or when an NA is reported visit the cache locations to determine if it does indeed need to be archived, etc. When a reviewer steps down, moves out of the area or passes away the duty is assigned/passed on to someone else who is willing to step up and do so.

Some reviewers are hundreds, even thousands of kilometres from the caches they are reviewing.

[+Tassie_Boy]

I never said an army of reviewers. One or two volunteers who live in their respective geographical area who are also experienced cachers. Therefore no training necessary as the training comes from them being well versed in the guidelines and with participating in geocaching themselves. For example in my area one or two well experienced geocachers would be enough, so hardly an army.

Where to begin...

 

Do you have any idea how large a territory most volunteer reviewers cover? Let's just say that it's orders of magnitude larger than the territory any FTF-hound could cover.

 

So we'd need orders of magnitude more volunteer reviewers. And they certainly would need training. Even with the current (tiny, compared to your proposal) number of volunteer reviewers, there are occasional issues with inconsistent interpretation/enforcement of the guidelines.

 

And of course, the current goal of an initial review within a week would be completely impossible under your proposal.

 

And what exactly is the problem you're trying to solve, that isn't being addressed by the current system?

 

Pr....oh never mind, you wouldn't understand what I mean by it anyway.

 

No.... go on, we're interested.

 

A state like tasmania would need around 10 reviewers to make sure they are all "local". Even then there are caches that are a 10 day round walk to get to gz and back, or a flight plus walking but since they are volunteers....

 

What happens in parts of Africa or the Pacific islands where you have only a few caches and only a few cachers for thousands of kilometres?

[+lee737]

 

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? ....

 

 

You can publish as many of your own caches at any time you want, no reviewer needed.... just not on geocaching.com...... Just start your own site!

[+redsox_mark]

It is a reasonable question for a new cacher to ask. My (muggle) wife assumed when I said I was waiting for my cache to be reviewed that someone was physically checking it.

 

But as explained, that would not be practical.

 

The reviewers can detect most guideline violations without visiting the cache. They can't of course check physical violations (e.g. cache is buried) unless the listing mentions it. But these usually get reported by finders.

 

For the initial question; I've only seen reviewers question ratings on Events, or to check if Terrain 1 is wheelchair accessible.

[+Team Microdot]

I never said an army of reviewers. One or two volunteers who live in their respective geographical area who are also experienced cachers. Therefore no training necessary as the training comes from them being well versed in the guidelines and with participating in geocaching themselves. For example in my area one or two well experienced geocachers would be enough, so hardly an army.

Where to begin...

 

Do you have any idea how large a territory most volunteer reviewers cover? Let's just say that it's orders of magnitude larger than the territory any FTF-hound could cover.

 

So we'd need orders of magnitude more volunteer reviewers. And they certainly would need training. Even with the current (tiny, compared to your proposal) number of volunteer reviewers, there are occasional issues with inconsistent interpretation/enforcement of the guidelines.

 

And of course, the current goal of an initial review within a week would be completely impossible under your proposal.

 

And what exactly is the problem you're trying to solve, that isn't being addressed by the current system?

 

Pr....oh never mind, you wouldn't understand what I mean by it anyway.

 

There are some pretty smart people here who will do their best to understand.

 

I see you're still logging finds on empty, lidless containers so the question is - is anything productive coming out of the responses to any of your posts?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

Um, yeah.

 

Been that way for a few years now.

 

B.

 

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

 

Because land owners and land managers need to trust that there is some degree of oversight or else they will ban geocaching on their lands.

 

Please let us know how you intend to fund a system where reviewers physically confirm caches.

 

No funding needed so it can still be voluntary. But perhaps the guidelines should change to require a reviewer who resides in an immediate geographical area. For example I live in Sioux City, Iowa. This area has 3 river valleys, one of them major, at least one major creek valley, the Loess Hills, 4 counties, 3 states, and no less than 6 cities/towns in the immediate 15 mile radius. It would not be difficult to assign reviewers to this area who would visit the cache locations prior to publishing them or when an NA is reported visit the cache locations to determine if it does indeed need to be archived, etc. When a reviewer steps down, moves out of the area or passes away the duty is assigned/passed on to someone else who is willing to step up and do so.

 

Most areas have at least one dedicated reviewer that covers that area but the area can be quite large. I believe the entire state of NY is covered by two reviewers. It just wouldn't be practical for reviewers to visit every location prior to publishing a cache. There is also at least one reviewer that covers area that don't have a dedicated reviewer and published caches all over the world. They might publish a cache in Zambia and Papua-New Guinea on the same day.

[+narcissa]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

Um, yeah.

 

Been that way for a few years now.

 

B.

 

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

 

Because land owners and land managers need to trust that there is some degree of oversight or else they will ban geocaching on their lands.

 

Please let us know how you intend to fund a system where reviewers physically confirm caches.

 

No funding needed so it can still be voluntary. But perhaps the guidelines should change to require a reviewer who resides in an immediate geographical area. For example I live in Sioux City, Iowa. This area has 3 river valleys, one of them major, at least one major creek valley, the Loess Hills, 4 counties, 3 states, and no less than 6 cities/towns in the immediate 15 mile radius. It would not be difficult to assign reviewers to this area who would visit the cache locations prior to publishing them or when an NA is reported visit the cache locations to determine if it does indeed need to be archived, etc. When a reviewer steps down, moves out of the area or passes away the duty is assigned/passed on to someone else who is willing to step up and do so.

 

How do you propose we pay for this expanded army of reviewers who need to be trained? Who pays their travel expenses?

 

I never said an army of reviewers. One or two volunteers who live in their respective geographical area who are also experienced cachers. Therefore no training necessary as the training comes from them being well versed in the guidelines and with participating in geocaching themselves. For example in my area one or two well experienced geocachers would be enough, so hardly an army. They would also understand it is a voluntary position so no money will be paid for such duties. But one requirement would be they have to reside or live in the area they serve as a reviewer for. So no travel outside of their immediate area is required but at the same time they are not allowed to review caches for publication on the other side of their state. A reviewer from that area would have to do so.

 

They still have to travel to the caches.

 

How many reviewers would your system require for the state you live in?

[SicilianCyclops]

I don't understand what the problem is. If a CO lied to a Reviewer, or there was an honest mistake and something is wrong with a cache placement, listing, etc., then a finder will most likely report it. Having Reviewers physically visit a cache before publishing it is complete micromanagement, not to mention logistically impossible.

[+ChileHead]

I'm not sure what problem the OP is trying to solve. After reviewing tens of thousands of caches (or more?) I can say that the number of problems a physical in person review would solve, is slim to non existent. There have been a few where cache owners have been deceitful, or when cache owners have bad coordinates, but these usually become visible within days of publication. You see, we already have an arm of volunteers who check these things. They are called the FTFers.

[Pup Patrol]

I see you're still logging finds on empty, lidless containers so the question is - is anything productive coming out of the responses to any of your posts?

 

My suggestions for the OP:

 

--stop looking for anything smaller than "small"

 

--read ALL the previous logs. It's quite obvious that these caches have been broken for a long time, that people don't know how to post NM logs, and that the cache spew owners don't care.

 

(If I tell my husband that the P&G is a micro, he won't even get out of the truck any more.)

 

Also, please note that things change after publication. What might have started out as a legitimate "small" could now be a throw-down micro. People like to do that. It's very, very annoying. (One of the reasons I gave up dealing with swag a long time ago.)

 

Yes, people lie to the Reviewers. It's up to the finders to post the appropriate NM or NA logs, or contact the Reviewer privately.

 

B.

[+Team_Vod]

When submitting a cache for review to be published after placing it and following all the guidelines up to that point who determines the ratings and size? Is it the CO as he or she is creating and placing it? Does the CO advise the reviewer of the size and ratings for difficulty and terrain? If so, if the reviewer disagrees does that person advise the CO to change it or just change it themselves prior to publishing it? Does the reviewer actually visit the cache location, are they supposed to? Or do reviewers publish without visiting the cache location, ie: armchair publishing?

 

The CO determines size and D/T ratings. I imagine that if something strikes the Reviewer as odd for either, then he/she might ask the CO about it.

 

The Reviewer does not visit the physical location as part of the review process. It's just not physically possible.

 

B.

 

So the reviewer blindly publishes the cache listing without really verifying and knowing if it is a legitimate geocache? In other words they take the word of the CO at face value? It seems like the so called "honor system" is used.

 

Um, yeah.

 

Been that way for a few years now.

 

B.

 

Then what is the point and purpose of having reviewers if they are not going to verify the geocaches are legit., valid, etc.? Why not just skip the middle man and let us publish our own? And please do not say because Groundspeak says so or any words to that affect.

 

Because land owners and land managers need to trust that there is some degree of oversight or else they will ban geocaching on their lands.

 

Please let us know how you intend to fund a system where reviewers physically confirm caches.

 

No funding needed so it can still be voluntary. But perhaps the guidelines should change to require a reviewer who resides in an immediate geographical area. For example I live in Sioux City, Iowa. This area has 3 river valleys, one of them major, at least one major creek valley, the Loess Hills, 4 counties, 3 states, and no less than 6 cities/towns in the immediate 15 mile radius. It would not be difficult to assign reviewers to this area who would visit the cache locations prior to publishing them or when an NA is reported visit the cache locations to determine if it does indeed need to be archived, etc. When a reviewer steps down, moves out of the area or passes away the duty is assigned/passed on to someone else who is willing to step up and do so.

 

How do you propose we pay for this expanded army of reviewers who need to be trained? Who pays their travel expenses?

 

I never said an army of reviewers. One or two volunteers who live in their respective geographical area who are also experienced cachers. Therefore no training necessary as the training comes from them being well versed in the guidelines and with participating in geocaching themselves. For example in my area one or two well experienced geocachers would be enough, so hardly an army. They would also understand it is a voluntary position so no money will be paid for such duties. But one requirement would be they have to reside or live in the area they serve as a reviewer for. So no travel outside of their immediate area is required but at the same time they are not allowed to review caches for publication on the other side of their state. A reviewer from that area would have to do so.

 

They still have to travel to the caches.

 

How many reviewers would your system require for the state you live in?

 

Depending on the population of each county, Iowa has 99. I live in Woodbury, Sioux City is he county seat and is the 5th largest city in Iowa. An area like mine may only 2 or 3 but central Iowa, or Polk County which has a much higher population may need 5 or more.

[+Team_Vod]

In my one comment I was going to an am now saying: Proactive rather than reactive. And I was going to leave it at that. I think most if not all of you can figure out what that means. For the uninitiated it means a proactive way to prevent problems from even occurring rather than a reactive approach when they do occur.

 

I never said this would be simple or easy. I just think the reviewer part of geocaching needs to improve, change and evolve.

[+Team_Vod]

I'm not sure what problem the OP is trying to solve. After reviewing tens of thousands of caches (or more?) I can say that the number of problems a physical in person review would solve, is slim to non existent. There have been a few where cache owners have been deceitful, or when cache owners have bad coordinates, but these usually become visible within days of publication. You see, we already have an arm of volunteers who check these things. They are called the FTFers.

 

FTFers? What pray-tel is that?

[+Team Microdot]

I'm not sure what problem the OP is trying to solve. After reviewing tens of thousands of caches (or more?) I can say that the number of problems a physical in person review would solve, is slim to non existent. There have been a few where cache owners have been deceitful, or when cache owners have bad coordinates, but these usually become visible within days of publication. You see, we already have an arm of volunteers who check these things. They are called the FTFers.

 

FTFers? What pray-tel is that?

 

First To Finder's

[+fuzziebear3]

First to Find (FTF) - those brave souls who risk bad coordinates, bad write ups, bad D/T ratings, bad weather ... just to get their name on the top of the slip of paper. They will also be the first to notice (and will likely report) that something is amiss in the listing or is a serious guideline violation. You could consider them to be the volunteer army with eyes on the ground that you are proposing.

[+dprovan]

Even though I am still new at this I think I can safely say I have seen what happens when something like this is left to be self regulated/governed.

What happens if something like this is left to be self regulated/governed? Do people run amok?

 

Oh, wait, I can tell you what happens when something like this is left to be self regulated: mature people enjoy playing a game with each other. Once in a while, someone that isn't mature enough to play with adults doesn't get it, but it's explained to them and usually they're fine after that. Sometimes people are banned, but not often.

[+Team_Vod]

I'm not sure what problem the OP is trying to solve. After reviewing tens of thousands of caches (or more?) I can say that the number of problems a physical in person review would solve, is slim to non existent. There have been a few where cache owners have been deceitful, or when cache owners have bad coordinates, but these usually become visible within days of publication. You see, we already have an arm of volunteers who check these things. They are called the FTFers.

 

FTFers? What pray-tel is that?

 

First To Finder's

 

Then wouldn't be up to the FTF's to report any issues? What if there are and they still do not report anything? That does not mean a problem does not exist, just that they did not report anything for what ever reason.

 

I wonder if this scenario has ever happened: A CO places a new cache, he or she lies in the description or makes some sort of false statement regarding the cache and/or its placement. It is arm chair published by a reviewer hundreds if not thousands of miles a away. The very first person who searches for it finds it, but notices a problem with it. This could be anything from being at the wrong coordinates but close enough the FTF was able to find it anyway to an issue with something like the cache size, or the cache has inappropriate swag in it, say a weapon or illegal drugs, what ever, but something banned from being in a cache container. This person does not report it as NM or even NA. Then the next ten people who search for it does not find it but still no one reports an NM or NA. Then the next person who finds it is a kid, who's parents are also geocachers, and he trades for the swag and takes the banned substance home. Lets say that banned substance is illegal drugs. Oh I forgot to mention the cache is located in a city park. I will stop right there but you can see where this is going I think.

 

See the problem that would be prevented if a reviewer lived in the geographical area and physically reviewed each cache before publishing it? Do not say this type of secenario could not happen, it is very plausible.

[+Team_Vod]

Even though I am still new at this I think I can safely say I have seen what happens when something like this is left to be self regulated/governed.

What happens if something like this is left to be self regulated/governed? Do people run amok?

 

Oh, wait, I can tell you what happens when something like this is left to be self regulated: mature people enjoy playing a game with each other. Once in a while, someone that isn't mature enough to play with adults doesn't get it, but it's explained to them and usually they're fine after that. Sometimes people are banned, but not often.

 

So what exactly are you saying? I am going to be banned? For what? I have not been advised by mods or admins, are you one? Do you mean banned from the forums or banned entirely from geocaching?

[+GeoTrekker26]

I'm not sure what problem the OP is trying to solve. After reviewing tens of thousands of caches (or more?) I can say that the number of problems a physical in person review would solve, is slim to non existent. There have been a few where cache owners have been deceitful, or when cache owners have bad coordinates, but these usually become visible within days of publication. You see, we already have an arm of volunteers who check these things. They are called the FTFers.

 

FTFers? What pray-tel is that?

 

You really should post less and cache more. With a little more experience you will realize how inane some of your posts are. When people try to help, you dig in your feet and continue to take indefensible positions. You have a lot to contribute to the game, and have started some good threads that have produces some interesting posts. But just like any new endeavor, geocaching requires an understanding of the mores of the game, some of which have taken years to develop. This understanding is best developed through experiences. I look forward to your first hide. Your attention to detail and creativity should result in a good cache. Also a cache owner gets to see a different side of the game.

[+kunarion]

Even though I am still new at this I think I can safely say I have seen what happens when something like this is left to be self regulated/governed.

What happens if something like this is left to be self regulated/governed? Do people run amok?

 

Oh, wait, I can tell you what happens when something like this is left to be self regulated: mature people enjoy playing a game with each other. Once in a while, someone that isn't mature enough to play with adults doesn't get it, but it's explained to them and usually they're fine after that. Sometimes people are banned, but not often.

 

So what exactly are you saying? I am going to be banned? For what? I have not been advised by mods or admins, are you one? Do you mean banned from the forums or banned entirely from geocaching?

What often happens locally is the FTF, and others post a log about it. The cacher expected to find something within the guidelines, and it was way off, so the cacher makes appropriate logs. Until the situation improves, I won't bother with that hider's caches. Families are hunting caches on an outing on a weekend, and they plan the trip based on the cache info. So no running amok. Post accurate cache info.

 

And here's a little glossary of caching terms: https://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx

Edited May 23, 2016 by kunarion

[+Team_Vod]

I'm not sure what problem the OP is trying to solve. After reviewing tens of thousands of caches (or more?) I can say that the number of problems a physical in person review would solve, is slim to non existent. There have been a few where cache owners have been deceitful, or when cache owners have bad coordinates, but these usually become visible within days of publication. You see, we already have an arm of volunteers who check these things. They are called the FTFers.

 

FTFers? What pray-tel is that?

 

You really should post less and cache more. With a little more experience you will realize how inane some of your posts are. When people try to help, you dig in your feet and continue to take indefensible positions. You have a lot to contribute to the game, and have started some good threads that have produces some interesting posts. But just like any new endeavor, geocaching requires an understanding of the mores of the game, some of which have taken years to develop. This understanding is best developed through experiences. I look forward to your first hide. Your attention to detail and creativity should result in a good cache. Also a cache owner gets to see a different side of the game.

 

I have been out caching 7 of the last 8 days, visited at least 15 cache locations, most I found, some I did not. From what I understand this is not to impress you and should not matter to you as have others have pointed out it is about the adventure for me and what I get out of it. But I do need to state I think 7 days and 15 cache locations is a lot.

 

Is there any way to make the finds private from others viewing them?

[+Team_Vod]

Even though I am still new at this I think I can safely say I have seen what happens when something like this is left to be self regulated/governed.

What happens if something like this is left to be self regulated/governed? Do people run amok?

 

Oh, wait, I can tell you what happens when something like this is left to be self regulated: mature people enjoy playing a game with each other. Once in a while, someone that isn't mature enough to play with adults doesn't get it, but it's explained to them and usually they're fine after that. Sometimes people are banned, but not often.

 

So what exactly are you saying? I am going to be banned? For what? I have not been advised by mods or admins, are you one? Do you mean banned from the forums or banned entirely from geocaching?

What often happens locally is the FTF, and others post a log about it. The cacher expected to find something within the guidelines, and it was way off, so the cacher makes appropriate logs. Until the situation improves, I won't bother with that hider's caches. Families are hunting caches on an outing on a weekend, and they plan the trip based on the cache info. So no running amok. Post accurate cache info.

 

And here's a little glossary of caching terms: https://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx

 

I also discovered the lexicon.

Edited May 23, 2016 by SUX_VR_40_Rider

[Pup Patrol]

This is what people are trying to tell you...

 

that the folks who are brave enough to be First-to-find hunters will indeed post anything hinky or incorrect about the cache/cache location.

 

Nothing ticks off even the casual FTF'er than to find out that the cache is not in place, for example.

 

They will log the appropriate DNF and/or NM and/or NA.

 

I think if Groundspeak finds there are problems, they will appoint more reviewers. But, with feedback from the current reviewers and cachers, they know the situation pretty well. Much better than those of us on the outside.

 

I strongly suggest that you attend an Event or two. Get to know your local cachers.

 

Post DNF's and NM's. Let Groundspeak and other local cachers know that there is a problem.

 

Don't be like all those other folks who don't know how to post DNF, NM, or that what they have "found" is not a cache, but garbage that the cache owner needs to deal with one way or another.

 

Ontario, Canada...I believe we have 5 reviewers. As far as I have seen, none of them review in their "local" area. Seems to be working fine.

 

B.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Pup Patrol

[+NanCycle]

Is there any way to make the finds private from others viewing them?

 

Yes, don't log them on the geocaching.com site. Some people just keep their own records, just for themselves. However, if caches were never logged as found, how many hiders do you think would remain interested in hiding caches?

[Pup Patrol]

Another tidbit:

 

you can edit the quoting to only that which is necessary. You can also "preview" your post before submitting it.

 

The multiquoting in this thread must be reaching record proportions.

 

B.

[+J Grouchy]

Is there any way to make the finds private from others viewing them?

 

Yes. Don't log them online.

That's the entire point of an "online" log...to make it visible to others who visit the page. Plenty of people choose not to log online, so you wouldn't be alone.

[Pup Patrol]

I have been out caching 7 of the last 8 days, visited at least 15 cache locations, most I found, some I did not. From what I understand this is not to impress you and should not matter to you as have others have pointed out it is about the adventure for me and what I get out of it. But I do need to state I think 7 days and 15 cache locations is a lot.

 

Our personal record is 15 caches in one day (a couple of hours.)

 

That's peanuts compared to some folks.

 

Is there any way to make the finds private from others viewing them?

 

Don't log them online.

 

Some folks don't log their experiences online. Some folks will log only "write note" logs.

 

It's up to you. Not logging anything online doesn't let Groundspeak or the cache owner or other cachers know of any problems with the cache.

 

B.

[+Team_Vod]

I have been out caching 7 of the last 8 days, visited at least 15 cache locations, most I found, some I did not. From what I understand this is not to impress you and should not matter to you as have others have pointed out it is about the adventure for me and what I get out of it. But I do need to state I think 7 days and 15 cache locations is a lot.

 

Our personal record is 15 caches in one day (a couple of hours.)

 

That's peanuts compared to some folks.

 

B.

 

I forgot to mention was 5 of the cache locations were via my bike on the way to work, two were on the same commute trip.