Can't mention the Wherigo Foundation on a cache listing

[djhobby]

I recently published a Wherigo, and in my description of the cartridge on the geocaching.com website, I mentioned that I used Earwigo, Urwigo, and help from the Wherigo Foundation in the cache description. The reviewer would not publish my listing until I removed the references to the Wherigo Foundation and the alternative Wherigo builders in cache descriptions, stating that Groundspeak does not want any mention of those in a cache listings.

 

I was a little shocked. Groundspeak has all but abandon Wherigos, and turns their back on the community that is actively supporting it.

[+Manville Possum]

I recently published a Wherigo, and in my description of the cartridge on the geocaching.com website, I mentioned that I used Earwigo, Urwigo, and help from the Wherigo Foundation in the cache description. The reviewer would not publish my listing until I removed the references to the Wherigo Foundation and the alternative Wherigo builders in cache descriptions, stating that Groundspeak does not want any mention of those in a cache listings.

 

I was a little shocked. Groundspeak has all but abandon Wherigos, and turns their back on the community that is actively supporting it.

 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Manville Possum

[+Manville Possum]

Wait... today is April 1st.

[Ranger Fox]

Unfortunately, that's not a joke. It's the way things are with the geocache review process at the moment. Until the Wherigo Foundation is recognized by Groundspeak as an approved entity, they've told reviewers not to allow the mention of anything third-party. Occasionally, mention of something gets by, but that's because reviewers are not consistent between each other.

 

It's sad people can't mention the very things preventing everything from falling apart.

[+Manville Possum]

Unfortunately, that's not a joke. It's the way things are with the geocache review process at the moment. Until the Wherigo Foundation is recognized by Groundspeak as an approved entity, they've told reviewers not to allow the mention of anything third-party. Occasionally, mention of something gets by, but that's because reviewers are not consistent between each other.

 

It's sad people can't mention the very things preventing everything from falling apart.

 

Can I still call it a Wherigo cache on the listing? I guess maybe that is a question for my reviewer.

I may need to contact you with a PM, would that be okay to discuss my recent Wherigo. I'm sure you can see it in your kit that I used to build it with.

[Ranger Fox]

Yeah, it's a wonder we can still call it a Wherigo cartridge.

 

Sure, we can discuss your cartridge. While I can access any cartridge in Kit, I consider them private and don't pry unless someone asks for help.

[+Manville Possum]

Yeah, it's a wonder we can still call it a Wherigo cartridge.

 

Sure, we can discuss your cartridge. While I can access any cartridge in Kit, I consider them private and don't pry unless someone asks for help.

 

I'll PM you later. The kit worked very well and I have tested my Wherigo and it works. I have not published it to the Wherigo site yet, and I'm working on the draft to the geocache listing. I was unaware about the guidelines about what to not mention. I like things to go smoothly with the local reviewer, and I have a time frame to publish my listing.

[+bflentje]

I recently published a Wherigo, and in my description of the cartridge on the geocaching.com website, I mentioned that I used Earwigo, Urwigo, and help from the Wherigo Foundation in the cache description. The reviewer would not publish my listing until I removed the references to the Wherigo Foundation and the alternative Wherigo builders in cache descriptions, stating that Groundspeak does not want any mention of those in a cache listings.

 

I was a little shocked. Groundspeak has all but abandon Wherigos, and turns their back on the community that is actively supporting it.

 

Exact same thing happened on my most recently published Wherigo. I wrote if off as yet more reviewer inconsistency.

[Keystone]

Any reviewer who asks you to remove references to the Wherigo Foundation on your cache listing is acting consistent with the guidance provided to us by Geocaching HQ.

[+Manville Possum]

Any reviewer who asks you to remove references to the Wherigo Foundation on your cache listing is acting consistent with the guidance provided to us by Geocaching HQ.

 

I'm new to the Wherigo idea, and what confused me was Wherigo.com vs Wherigo Foundation. I now know the difference.

[+bflentje]

Any reviewer who asks you to remove references to the Wherigo Foundation on your cache listing is acting consistent with the guidance provided to us by Geocaching HQ.

 

Sure. That's why I never mentioned it publicly until I saw this thread.

 

And I know the precedent statement.. but to see many recently published (within the last year) Wherigos, particularly in Europe, violate that guideline, it's rather irritating. But then see my first sentence.

[Ranger Fox]

but to see many recently published (within the last year) Wherigos, particularly in Europe, violate that guideline, it's rather irritating.

One of the general constructive criticisms I've had for years about the geocaching reviewers is they're inconsistent with each other. Geocachers who view a cache listing in one region may attempt to duplicate the experience (container, placement, and listing) within another region only to meet with unexpected issues. I feel your pain. I wish I could help, but I've always been kept at a distance from the reviewer community.

[+bflentje]

but to see many recently published (within the last year) Wherigos, particularly in Europe, violate that guideline, it's rather irritating.

One of the general constructive criticisms I've had for years about the geocaching reviewers is they're inconsistent with each other. Geocachers who view a cache listing in one region may attempt to duplicate the experience (container, placement, and listing) within another region only to meet with unexpected issues. I feel your pain. I wish I could help, but I've always been kept at a distance from the reviewer community.

 

In my case, it was easier to comply. Anyone just wanting to play the cartridge won't care. And anyone wanting to build a cartridge will eventually find the Wherigo Foundation, just as I and many of the rest of us did.

[+Touchstone]

but to see many recently published (within the last year) Wherigos, particularly in Europe, violate that guideline, it's rather irritating.

One of the general constructive criticisms I've had for years about the geocaching reviewers is they're inconsistent with each other. Geocachers who view a cache listing in one region may attempt to duplicate the experience (container, placement, and listing) within another region only to meet with unexpected issues. I feel your pain. I wish I could help, but I've always been kept at a distance from the reviewer community.

I'm not sure how many Reviewers there are (couple hundred maybe?), but the obvious solution to avoid inconsistency is just to stick to what the Guidelines state what is allowed, until such time that the Foundation can be mentioned:

 

The cartridge must reside at Wherigo.com.

 

Some of the responsibility falls on the cache owner to know this kind of stuff, and if it's not clearly stated in the Guidelines as allowed, then the obvious fall back is to assume it's not.

 

Whenever I hear about these arguments about "inconsistency" my first thought is, well that is why we used to have a 3 day turnaround and now it's 7 days. I guess we could move it out to 14 days if people prefer that approach, if Consistency is of paramount importance to people.

[Ranger Fox]

Whenever I hear about these arguments about "inconsistency" my first thought is, well that is why we used to have a 3 day turnaround and now it's 7 days. I guess we could move it out to 14 days if people prefer that approach, if Consistency is of paramount importance to people.

I think it's more of a reviewer training and awareness issue than anything else. But I will say that reviewers have to keep a lot of things in mind as it is, so other things are bound to get by, at which point it's up to the community to police their own affairs. Checking link URLs are a minor concern.

[djhobby]

I really don't have a problem with our reviewer, he does a great job. He usually publishes caches the same day they are submitted too.

 

What I don't understand is why Groundspeak would not allow the mention of the Wherigo Foundation or the other builders. Are they someday (probably 20 years down the road) planning on supporting Wherigos more and find that these other entities are taking money away from them?

[Ranger Fox]

The reason why differs between the WF site and the other builders. In my opinion, some reviewers don't allow the other builders because no one from Groundspeak said it's okay for those names to be mentioned. They're technically competing with Groundspeak's own (abandoned) builder. I don't think it would be a problem for the builders to be mentioned.

 

The WF site, on the other hand, could lead to problems both Groundspeak and I wish to avoid. We both want the cartridges to be listed on only one site. It's easier for everyone and consistent. If the WF partnership doesn't happen and the WF site needs to be taken down, we can't have cartridges existing only on the WF site. It's not fair for people to be inconvenienced in that way. No one (except those who searched on Wherigo.com) would be able to find the geocache if the listing didn't take you to a page to download the cartridge. Personally, my main concern is merging the two sites. If the WF site is later hosted at Wherigo.com, I would need to preserve the original links to Wherigo.com and make sure the WF site links also redirect to Wherigo.com. When merging the sites, I will need to go through every listing to see if it's test or real data. The less I have to look through, the easier it is. I also want to avoid the problem of people losing their cartridges if the partnership doesn't work out.

 

(And I've always had that message on the WF site's cartridge upload page.)

 

Finally, there's one other thing. The short of it is the WF site can be seen as a competing listing service, just as OpenCaching was to geocaching.com. Just as it was then, Groundspeak did not allow another listing service to be mentioned to or linked from their listings.

[+bflentje]

I really don't have a problem with our reviewer, he does a great job. He usually publishes caches the same day they are submitted too.

 

What I don't understand is why Groundspeak would not allow the mention of the Wherigo Foundation or the other builders. Are they someday (probably 20 years down the road) planning on supporting Wherigos more and find that these other entities are taking money away from them?

 

I don't have a problem with my reviewers either. I incorrectly assumed the WF had a tighter relationship with Groundspeak than it does. The inconsistencies are nothing that will change when you have so many volunteers interpreting the guidelines.