Let's Calmly Discuss When........................

[+Renegade Knight]

Echoing what mtn-man said, in my two years here, whenever a topic came up about the evil reviewers, when the truth came out, the cacher was always in the wrong.

When the cacher was right, how did you know?

In this case we know the cacher was right because the cache was unarchived. There was a very nice controvery surrounding that archive log.

[ju66l3r]

When the cacher was right, how did you know?

 

you don't! the cache got listed and we never heard about it.

 

are there cases where the cacher was right? probably, but we wouldn't see those, they'd be appealed properly and I'd be willing to bet the cache was listed without a peep of it being made here in the forums.

Incidentally, reviewers *have* been removed from their duties in the past by Groundspeak. It's not important to share the who and how of that, but it is important to note that they *do* maintain oversight and *do* take action when a problem is chronic.

 

This clearly indicates that the cachers have been right and complained and there was action taken in the past, robert.

 

It's not all about lopsided forum rants and cache approvals.

 

The point I'm trying to get across to you (and others who feel the same way) is that if you're taking the forum rants as your evidence that the current system is beautiful, then you're working with a self-fulfilling prophecy. The times when a cacher goes off the deep-end will be posted here and the full story will exonerate the reviewer. The times when a reviewer goes off the deep-end and the person is told to followup with an abuseline mail and corrective action is OR isn't taken, you won't hear anything else more. You can't put anything down in the "cacher being right" column. So, if you look back (in your mind or on paper), you're right! The only complaints are the unreasonable ones where the reviewer is exonerated! Whew, the system works.

[+hydee]

The reviewer team strives to do the best they can for the community. Considering the volume of caches they review the percentage of complaints is very low.

 

My main job is assisting and managing the reviewer team. When they are doing well it is my job to tell them, when they are doing poorly it is my job to fix it. Not only are they held accountable to each other, to Groundspeak and to the community. I am also held accountable for all of their actions.

 

I don't like it when they are having issues. They know when I am unhappy, and I am not one to avoid conflict. So they hear from me pretty quickly. My main focus is to fix the problem not cut the rope and let them go. When one is having an issue in many cases the whole review team will discuss the problem, not to point fingers but to try to avoid the issue from coming up again. Reviewers have been removed, they take breaks and some choose to leave. But the discipline of the reviewers is not something that will be made public.

 

They take a lot of heat at times when it is just a disgruntled cacher. But regardless if the majority of the complaints I receive are just that, a disgruntled cacher that feels that for some reason the guidelines shouldn't apply to them, I still look at each and every complaint with an open mind. The reviewers do make mistakes. When they do, we deal with them.

 

Reviewers become volunteers for many different reasons. And depending on those reasons they may or may not decide to use an anonymous account. This is something we offer them, and will continue to offer them. It allows them to remain a 'normal' part of the caching community. They can go to an event without having to answer a million questions about the listing guidelines. They can post in the forums without the perception they are speaking on behalf of Groundspeak.

 

If anyone has an issue with their reviewer they would like brought to my attention, please feel free to email appeals@Groundspeak.com at anytime.

[+Snoogans]

All I have to say is there are often two sides to the story. I tend to be skeptical of complaints following the denial of a cache. Often it is because someone wanted to bend the guidelines, got denied, and then is mad. Not always, but often.

 

Although there is nothing wrong discussing when to fire people in theory, and I think Renegade Knight's list is pretty good, the fact of it is that Groundspeak makes such decisions and I think can form their own criteria. I would also guess that the most effective way to resolve an issue would be through communication with the reviewer and Groundspeak. The public reviewer bashing threads posted after a cache denial just don't seem like an effective way of dealing with a problem. It usually just leaves all parties involved more annoyed with each other.

Yes Carleen. The approver in this case was clearly in the right to deny my event cache. I do not dispute that much. It's how he handled my appeal that ripped his shorts with me. It was exactly the type of response others had talked about at events. I reserved judgement until I experienced for myself.

 

I'm a level headed person, but I have limits and had already vowed NOT to take the next instance of abuse (however light in this case) lying down.

 

I started this thread on a positive not and ended it on a positive note in the OP. I have no ax to grind against this particular individual, but as you know, I attend every event I can possibly make it to and this IS an issue (in many areas) that should be addressed out in the open.

[+carleenp]

I don't really agree that it needs to be out in the open. I think publically complaining just opens the door to people ranting and getting themselves worked up. In the end it usually seems to do more harm than good to all parties involved.

 

I'm not saying don't complain. But I don't think the public airing of disputes is really all that helpful. I think it is better to just take it to Groundspeak.

[+Snoogans]

I hope this doesn't become solely focused on complaints due to a cache being denied.

 

I believe Snoogans is more disappointed/annoyed/problemed by the attitude of the reviewer and not that the cache was denied.

 

Yup. It's not what you say so much as how you say it.

 

Someone mentioned the same reviewer using a different sock to approve my caches.... I wouldn't care as long as they never repeated the behavior. That's what I meant by " an approver that I can respect, or at least hasn't disrespected me."

 

Let me be very CLEAR. This thread was not posted out of animosity. I have always liked the geocacher behind that approver account. Still do.

 

I will not tolerate unprofessional behavior from someone representing ANY business. Paid or not. That is the case here and I felt like discussing it. That IS what these forums are for. Geocachers are a second family of sorts to me, approvers and admin included. It's good to clear the air from time to time....

Edited August 8, 2005 by Snoogans

[+CompassCollector]

Before us Geocachers complain about reviewers' sock puppet accounts, perhaps we should look ourselves in the mirror first. It's typical on the internet for people to create sock puppets merely for the purpose of massaging their own ego without adding value to their respective community, contrary to what the volunteer reviewers do here at Geocaching.com.

 

I'd love to see a massive PURGE of Geocacher sock puppets first. Then, we can point the finger at reviewer sock puppets.

I have more than one geocaching.com account. Before we go labelling everybody with 2 or more accounts as 'sock puppets', lets consider valid reasons why they might be created.

 

In my case, I have two accounts because I cache both as myself, and with my children. When I cache with my family I typically go to caches I've visited personally before. That way my kids can have the geocaching experience, and I can let them look for the cache on their own, but still be available to give them hints and pointers, etc. Having the two accounts makes it easy for me to figure out which caches I've visited alone, and which ones I should take them to. Is that a 'sock puppet'? I don't think so.

 

In the case of reviewers: I will not begrudge the reviewers a separate account from their 'regular' geocaching account. I've seen things get too personal here in the forums, and I've heard about things getting personal "out there" as well. If I were a reviewer, I'd want a separate account just so I could separate the roles, pretty much like a separate the roles between my two current accounts. As long as geocaching.com knows that X account goes with Y person, I don't see why I need to.

[ju66l3r]

Considering the volume of caches they review the percentage of complaints is very low.

As well it should be. That's a very poor metric for judging the quality of the reviewer. For those interactions with people, like briansnat, who follow all the rules and do everything right, there'll never be an issue. Hopefully there are many more of those than not. Instead, complaints against reviewers should be like the old forum warning system. Severity of complaint/problem causes a proportional spike to their meter. Each new problem heightens the severity of the spike. The half-life of that spike is slowly time-dependent such that enough spiking pegs the meter out and they are replaced. In other words, if I approve 200 caches nicely, I'm allowed to act out once in a while since my percentage is low?

 

Not only are they held accountable to each other, to Groundspeak and to the community.  I am also held accountable for all of their actions.

 

How are they held accountable to the community? Simply because I can report them does not make them accountable. You even describe the fact that they are allowed to be anonymous and corrective action isn't public, so they're never accountable or accounted for to the community if they don't want to be.

 

My main focus is to fix the problem not cut the rope and let them go.  When one is having an issue in many cases the whole review team will discuss the problem, not to point fingers but to try to avoid the issue from coming up again.

 

Some reviewers have been given an extremely large amount of rope before. What does it take to finally cut it? Sometimes cutting the rope is more appropriate and then discussing how to avoid it from coming up again.

 

But the discipline of the reviewers is not something that will be made public.

 

If the company is going to stand as a shield between the poor volunteers and the community they offend, then it's the company that's going to take the dings and should take the dings before it finally realizes it needs to put those people out.

[Keystone]

Reviewers become volunteers for many different reasons. And depending on those reasons they may or may not decide to use an anonymous account. This is something we offer them, and will continue to offer them. It allows them to remain a 'normal' part of the caching community. They can go to an event without having to answer a million questions about the listing guidelines. They can post in the forums without the perception they are speaking on behalf of Groundspeak.

I initially chose to use an anonymous account, for the reasons Hydee describes. I enjoyed attending events and socializing with other geocachers, and I didn't want my volunteer work for the site to interfere with that. But then, through a combination of slipups on my part and a lot of eager detectives who make it their life's mission to "out" the minority of reviewers who choose to remain anonymous, my identity became known to enough people that I decided to go ahead and "come out of the closet" just a mere 14 weeks later.

 

Nowadays, it's very difficult for me to have fun at an event. I know that everything I do or say may reflect upon Groundspeak. I am often peppered with questions at the picnic pavilion about so-and-so's terrible caches, when I'd rather be out on the trails with friends, finding the caches hidden for the event. Even if everyone's cool, I still find it hard to have fun, just worrying about what *might* go wrong.

 

Add on top of that the threatening e-mails ("I know where you live", "I am writing to Jeremy about your outrageous behavior," "I am reporting your lack of ethics to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation," "I'll be waiting for you if you ever show your face at an event") and having cache review and moderating decisions dragged through the forums. Funny, you don't hear so much of the stories when it's the reviewer being abused. We keep those to ourselves, for the most part.

 

I certainly don't do this job for the fun and the glory, because it's neither fun nor glorious anymore. I do it because I was asked, and because the vast majority of people truly do appreciate the dozens of hours of work that I put in each week. I do it for the good of the sport, to the best of my ability. I am not perfect.

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't really agree that it needs to be out in the open. I think publically complaining just opens the door to people ranting and getting themselves worked up. In the end it usually seems to do more harm than good to all parties involved...

The public part that should be discussed is where is the line? Snoogans issue isn't about the denial of the cache it's about the behavior of the reviewer during the process. If grounspeak sets the bar at a level of abuse that the community doesn't want to deal with then they are opening the door to a lot more complaints and a lot more negative feelings. If they set the bar too strictly, then the reviewers will have a difficult time meeting it and become frustrated themselves and cache reviews will suffer.

 

If it would get someone admonished in the forums, that's where I draw the line.

[+Snoogans]

I don't really agree that it needs to be out in the open. I think publically complaining just opens the door to people ranting and getting themselves worked up. In the end it usually seems to do more harm than good to all parties involved.

 

I'm not saying don't complain. But I don't think the public airing of disputes is really all that helpful. I think it is better to just take it to Groundspeak.

I totally disagree from the spirit in which I started this thread.

 

To me, you're saying that the adults shouldn't discuss serious issues at the table because one of the children my use it as an excuse to grab attention for themselves.

 

I would be embarassed to take this instance to Groundspeak. The approver WAS right. It's the attude that I take issue with.

[Hugh Jazz]

I believe this may shed a bit of background lighting on this subject:

 

http://www.texasgeocaching.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2896

 

There is an alternative geocaching website where you can summarily dismiss your approver(s) and hire suitable replacements. This site simply does not operate that way, and demands for it to operate that way are widely considered to be futile.

 

One must operate within the rules of this site when submitting listings here, just as one must operate vis-a-vis within the rules of alternate listing sites when listing there.

 

-Hugh Jazz

[+sept1c_tank]

My local cache approver is professional, fair, helpful, courteous, timely and pleasant.

 

I have met or communicated with a variety of other approvers, and the great majority is likewise very professional and pleasant. The question, “When to fire a volunteer approver?” is, to me, not productive for general public discussion; it is evident, to me, that most approvers are doing their work admirably, and those bad eggs should be disciplined individually and privately (and I have some evidence that has happened).

 

Having said that, I would like to add there are some (at least two) approvers who apparently have very poor communicative skills, or maybe just don’t care. In a number of communications with Groundspeak approvers (not related to cache approval), I have been insulted or threatened. It is this type of approver that should be fired; they may do their job, but they create unwarranted animosity. It is usually these types that find themselves the subject of flaming forum topics.

 

Generally speaking, I have no beef with the approvers, and I thank them for doing their thankless job.

[+Snoogans]

I believe this may shed a bit of background lighting on this subject:

 

Mark,

 

Was that really necessary?

 

Please don't use my thread as a means to grind your ax.

[+carleenp]

I don't really agree that it needs to be out in the open. I think publically complaining just opens the door to people ranting and getting themselves worked up. In the end it usually seems to do more harm than good to all parties involved...

The public part that should be discussed is where is the line? Snoogans issue isn't about the denial of the cache it's about the behavior of the reviewer during the process. If grounspeak sets the bar at a level of abuse that the community doesn't want to deal with then they are opening the door to a lot more complaints and a lot more negative feelings. If they set the bar too strictly, then the reviewers will have a difficult time meeting it and become frustrated themselves and cache reviews will suffer.

 

If it would get someone admonished in the forums, that's where I draw the line.

I think discussing where a line is or should be is fine. But I become skeptical when it is done in the context of a specific person and a specific cache denial. I don't think the personal disputes get solved any better when publically aired.

 

Anyways, as far as where the line should be, I would hope people are courteous to each other. I would give people their fair share of sarcasm etc. I would likely be tolerant of an occassional rude remark if made in response to one. If there became a consistent problem then the line is crossed. If someone feels their reviewer was rude or has a bad attitude they can write to Groundspeak. I trust Hydee when she says she will address it.

[Hugh Jazz]

I believe this may shed a bit of background lighting on this subject:

 

Mark,

 

Was that really necessary?

 

Please don't use my thread as a means to grind your ax.

No axe grinding here ol'buddy. You demanded to fire an approver here (if typing in all caps isn't demanding then I need to go back to netiquette school and re-study the chapter on advanced use of the caps-lock key), and that just isn't done here. You're getting your sites mixed up.

 

Complain about the verbal abuse if you will, complain about the guidelines themselves even, but trying to get your approver fired just doesn''t work here. It works somewhere else, just not here. Here you get who you get and you deal with it.

 

 

 

My name is Hugh Jazz, and I approved this message.

[+Dagg]

[+sbell111]

I think discussing where a line is or should be is fine. But I become skeptical when it is done in the context of a specific person and a specific cache denial. I don't think the personal disputes get solved any better when publically aired. ...

I have to disagree with you on this issue. We've all seen a number of instances where a cacher started a thread because his cache was denied and he failed in making his case with the reviewer. After its all hashed out, most of the time, these stay denied, but sometimes they are approved.

 

Regarding more personal situations than the mere decision not to approve a cache for listing, part of me really agrees with you. However, we can all imagine a scenario where a person in a position of power could easily defame a cacher. The forums can be an excellent ground leveler, even though it can get ugly.

Edited August 8, 2005 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

... You demanded to fire an approver here (if typing in all caps isn't demanding then I need to go back to netiquette school and re-study the chapter on advanced use of the caps-lock key), and that just isn't done here. You're getting your sites mixed up....

First, I don't see the use of caps in the first post as a demand that anyone is fired. It was merely an exact quote of a request for a specific reviewer to pass this cacher's submittals to another reviewer.

 

Regarding your other point, Hydee has made it perfectly clear that Reviewers will be replaced if required.

[+carleenp]

I think discussing where a line is or should be is fine. But I become skeptical when it is done in the context of a specific person and a specific cache denial. I don't think the personal disputes get solved any better when publically aired. ...

I havt to disagree with you on this issue. We've all seen a number of instances where a cacher started a thread because his cache was denied and he failed in making his case with the reviewer. After its all hashed out, most of the time, these stay denied, but sometimes they are approved.

 

Regarding more personal situations than the mere decision not to approve a cache for listing, part of me really agrees with you. However, we can all imagine a scenario where a person in a position of power could easily defame a cacher. The forums can be an excellent ground leveler, even though it can get ugly.

Once in a while I think a thread has helped. Usually that is one where there was a reasonable dispute or difficult guideline interpretation. In those instances the debate can be very useful. It is when the person really is just angry and/or the topic is more personal in nature that I rarely find it helpful (although it can be entertaining reading). Often those turn into threads where people chime in with "yeah my reviewer is mean too" etc. Others say "our reviewer is great" and little gets accomplished except perhaps the occasional geocide if someone is really freaked out.

 

I think this thread is somewhere in the middle. The problem though is because it was brought up in the context of a specific instance and reviewer, it seems more like a personal complaint. I think that is more likely to get resolved through Groundspeak.

 

I also note that the topic Snoogans stated he wanted to discuss is not being discussed. I think there are actually only a couple of posts in all of this stating where people think the line should be. Renegade Knight left one, I left a short one, I think Hydee addressed it in general with her post. There might be a couple others. Most people though are discussing other things. Possibly because of the personal seeming nature of the situation. Just a theory.....

Edited August 8, 2005 by carleenp

[+StarBrand]

...

But the discipline of the reviewers is not something that will be made public.

 

If the company is going to stand as a shield between the poor volunteers and the community they offend, then it's the company that's going to take the dings and should take the dings before it finally realizes it needs to put those people out.

I have managed people for years and it just isn't cool to hang an employee out for public humiliation and disipline. No matter the offense. Take them aside and discuss the matter privately and then issue the discipline privately.

 

I would never ask an employee to do anything other than issue a simple apology. The rest of it is a private matter.

 

How would you like your boss to treat you when you screw up at work??

 

A. Tell the world what you did and how you were punished

 

B. As described above

[+sbell111]

Once in a while I think a thread has helped. Usually that is one where there was a reasonable dispute or difficult guideline interpretation. In those instances the debate can be very useful. It is when the person really is just angry and/or the topic is more personal in nature that I rarely find it helpful (although it can be entertaining reading). ...

The problem is, the cacher who starts a thread generally feels that they are right. Often, the discussion finds that this is not true. I don't see that discussion as a bad thing.

I think this thread is somewhere in the middle. The problem though is because it was brought up in the context of a specific instance and reviewer, it seems more like a personal complaint. I think that is more likely to get resolved through Groundspeak.

 

I also note that the topic Snoogans stated he wanted to discuss is not being discussed. I think there are actually only a couple of posts in all of this stating where people think the line should be. ...

I feel much the same way about how this thread has meandered as I do about whether people should air laundry inthe forums. Personally, I didn't read the initial post by Snoogans as grinding a personal ax (although it was probably close to the line). I have no idea what cache he referred to or who the Reviewer in question is. I don't care to. In fact, Snoogans has stepped in to try to stop the thread from getting too ax grindy.

 

The thread has allowed people to give there opinion on what is unacceptable to them. That has been good.

Edited August 8, 2005 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

What if there were a way to request a different reviewer handle your caches? Just a simple, "I want a different reviewer to handle my caches." Start getting a large number of folks wanting to be re-assigned a reviewer then you know you have a problem and it might be time to look for a replacement.

[+Lil Devil]

[ju66l3r]

I have managed people for years and it just isn't cool to hang an employee out for public humiliation and disipline. No matter the offense. Take them aside and discuss the matter privately and then issue the discipline privately.

 

How would you like your boss to treat you when you screw up at work??

I have been managed for years and it just isn't cool when people disappear and you have only speculation and rumor as to what management was thinking in getting rid of them.

 

If you're not going to fire/remove the person, then it's not always appropriate to dress them down amongst their peers. There are some cases where this is appropriate especially if you hope to generate awareness for a particular issue and to make that person aware that the community can be engaged in keeping them in line since they have screwed up somehow. If there is a need or how to threshold for something like that here is up for discussion (albeit highly moot, since GS decides accountability, not the community, and Hydee has established that GS is not interested in the thoughts of the community regarding this point).

 

If you are going to remove them, then telling everyone "Peter will not be returning to work with us because he violated our rules too many times. Please meet Jody, she will be taking over for Peter." is wholly appropriate and helps keep everyone on the same page.

[+Renegade Knight]

Here is how my profession's dirty laundry is aired. It's a matter of public record.

 

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

 

The following actions on complaints have been taken by the Board since publication of NEWS BULLETIN No. 34 in June of  2003.

It then goes on to details of misdeeds and the fines and admonishments. This is published quarterly. It's send to all engineers, but the public can look it up. Edited August 8, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+mtn-man]

Here is how my profession's dirty laundry is aired.  It's a matter of public record.

 

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

 

The following actions on complaints have been taken by the Board since publication of NEWS BULLETIN No. 34 in June of  2003.

It then goes on to details of misdeeds and the fines and admonishments. This is published quarterly. It's send to all engineers, but the public can look it up.

So.

 

At my company, it is done behind closed doors. All this illustrates is the fantastic free market economy that we enjoy where some companies are free run their company their way and other companies are free to run their own company they way they want, as long as it is legal. Groundspeak has spoken regarding their methods of handling this situation. They are free to make that choice.

 

Out of curiosity RK, is this reporting you mention governmentally mandated by chance with your company? Is it an issue where it has to be reported legally? I am curious because it sounds as if that might be a yes, which would not really tie your example into this discussion.

Edited August 8, 2005 by mtn-man

[+flask]

i'd just like to say that my reviewer is the most best, greatest guy in the world.

 

sycophantic toadying aside, i trust him to make decisions based on the information available to him. much of this information is not available to me.

 

i have run into some failure to behave courteously, but not from my reviewer.

 

it makes sense to me that if you're personally having dificulty with a reviewer, you ought to be able to request an alternate. maybe a reviewer is sick enough of YOU that he wants to hand off your caches to a second reviewer so as not to let his own personal bias interfere with the work.

 

in cases where a reviewer is romoved due to too many incidents of unpleasant interactions, it might be worth making a short statement simply to limit speculation and rumor.

[+sbell111]

The beauty of that is that the short statement need not be 100% accurate. "SuperCacheMan has elected to step back from reviewer duties for a while. Cache-a-matic will be taking care of these areas."

Edited August 8, 2005 by sbell111

[+El Diablo]

 

Add on top of that the threatening e-mails ("I know where you live", "I am writing to Jeremy about your outrageous behavior," "I am reporting your lack of ethics to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation," "I'll be waiting for you if you ever show your face at an event") and having cache review and moderating decisions dragged through the forums. Funny, you don't hear so much of the stories when it's the reviewer being abused. We keep those to ourselves, for the most part.

 

I certainly don't do this job for the fun and the glory, because it's neither fun nor glorious anymore. I do it because I was asked, and because the vast majority of people truly do appreciate the dozens of hours of work that I put in each week. I do it for the good of the sport, to the best of my ability. I am not perfect.

I'm going to have to add KA to my list of people to create a BIG Staff for.

 

Over the years I've dealt with, and met alot of Approvers and Admin of GC. Probably more than the average cacher. I've only known one to get out of line and that was immediately addressed by Hydee, and I didn't complain, she contacted me. That tells me that they have checks and balances in place to deal with volunteers.

 

El Diablo

[+Tidalflame]

Eh, I don't know. The reviewer system on this site is hardly perfect, but few things are. I can certainly see potential for problems, but I've never actually had any, so I'm not bothered by it. If I was, well, there's always TerraCaching (they have a different review system.)

 

By the way, thanks for reviewing my caches, mtn-man =)

[+briansnat]

After seeing the email exchange between the reviewer in question and Snoogans, I'm loath to see how it could have triggered this thread.

 

OK, the reviewer may have been a bit terse and perhaps could have worded things better, but there was nothing there that should have set Snoogs off. Maybe he was having a bad day, just the way some reviewers do.

[+sbell111]

I'm pretty sure that Snoogans mentioned 'cumulative effect' way up there. ---^

 

I'm a level headed person, but I have limits and had already vowed NOT to take the next instance of abuse (however light in this case) lying down.

 

edited to add quote.

Edited August 8, 2005 by sbell111

[+The SuzyQs]

We can honestly say that we have dealt with reviewers in 2 states and have had no issues with them. Very level headed people in the SouthEast. I have heard of people have problems, but have not experianced it first hand, and hope that we never do. Snoog, good luck in your endevor, we are with you man!

[+Runaround]

This thread is great. It's had popcorn, Godwin's Law, a helpful link to the Texas Geocaching site, and plenty of angst for everyone to have 2 servings.

 

As for when to fire a reviewer???

 

Submit your problems to the e-mail address and let Hydee sort it out. I don't need to know the results. If ABC Approver vanishes tomorrow, I'd have a pretty good idea why.

 

That said, if someone is fired, you could go with the typical corporate approach. "ABC Approver has left the company to pursue other interests." It works at the office, it should be good enough here. Then again, we've also had people just vanish. When you ask you are told they are no longer with the company and that further question on the subject will not be tolerated.

[+Runaround]

Nowadays, it's very difficult for me to have fun at an event. I know that everything I do or say may reflect upon Groundspeak. I am often peppered with questions at the picnic pavilion about so-and-so's terrible caches, when I'd rather be out on the trails with friends, finding the caches hidden for the event. Even if everyone's cool, I still find it hard to have fun, just worrying about what *might* go wrong.

Just say the word and we'll get you 2 NEOGEO hats. One with Keystone on the back and one with the alter ego (Shhh... I won't tell). At least this way when you attend events around here we'll know if you consider yourself on duty or not.

[+LaPaglia]

Nowadays, it's very difficult for me to have fun at an event.  I know that everything I do or say may reflect upon Groundspeak.  I am often peppered with questions at the picnic pavilion about so-and-so's terrible caches, when I'd rather be out on the trails with friends, finding the caches hidden for the event.  Even if everyone's cool, I still find it hard to have fun, just worrying about what *might* go wrong.

Just say the word and we'll get you 2 NEOGEO hats. One with Keystone on the back and one with the alter ego (Shhh... I won't tell). At least this way when you attend events around here we'll know if you consider yourself on duty or not.

I tried to google the pic but couldnt find it. They make hats with two brims so you can turn it around and be someone else.

[umc]

Add on top of that the threatening e-mails ("I know where you live", "I am writing to Jeremy about your outrageous behavior," "I am reporting your lack of ethics to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation," "I'll be waiting for you if you ever show your face at an event") and having cache review and moderating decisions dragged through the forums. Funny, you don't hear so much of the stories when it's the reviewer being abused. We keep those to ourselves, for the most part.

 

PA is a "Shall Issue" state.

[+mtn-man]

Nowadays, it's very difficult for me to have fun at an event.  I know that everything I do or say may reflect upon Groundspeak.  I am often peppered with questions at the picnic pavilion about so-and-so's terrible caches, when I'd rather be out on the trails with friends, finding the caches hidden for the event.  Even if everyone's cool, I still find it hard to have fun, just worrying about what *might* go wrong.

Just say the word and we'll get you 2 NEOGEO hats. One with Keystone on the back and one with the alter ego (Shhh... I won't tell). At least this way when you attend events around here we'll know if you consider yourself on duty or not.

It should have "that evil mtn-man guy" on the other.

I need one that says mtn-man on one and "that evil Keystone guy" on the other.

 

Just give me your paypal account.

Edited August 9, 2005 by mtn-man

[+Renegade Knight]

...At my company, it is done behind closed doors. ...Groundspeak has spoken regarding their methods of handling this situation. They are free to make that choice.

 

Out of curiosity RK, is this reporting you mention governmentally mandated by chance with your company? Is it an issue where it has to be reported legally? I am curious because it sounds as if that might be a yes, which would not really tie your example into this discussion.

When your work impacts the public, and when you screw up that impact is very real and those impacted need to know. My job (Civil Engineer/Project Manager in Transporation) is one of the few where no matter what I do, people are going to die. The only question is how many. All licensed engineers are subject to the scruteny and public censure if they do wrong. It is mandated by law.

 

If you make widgets, and failure means the widget gets rejected it doesn't matter.

 

Approvers, Admins etc. are in the middle. Odds are lives won't be lost if they scew up. However they do impact geocaching. If an approver starts approving buried caches to prove a point, then I dadgum well do have a right and need to know they have been removed, and more importantly what they did so they don't get another chance to ruin this hobby for us all.

 

GC.com may be a private company but they as well as others directly impact the public perception of geocaching and in turn my ability to enjoy my local parks by hunting caches in them.

 

I'm not going to buy the behind closed doors theory of the what happens when approvers do wrong. When they are removed we need to know why, if they remain after what appears to be a legitimate complaint, we need to know why. Groundspeak has spoken, but that doesn't make it the right choice. I have faith in most approvers. Not all, I've seen bad apples remain. I've seen pockets lined and people who should go to jail remain in office due to close door deals and recieved death threats for pointing this out. If Geocaching.com made widgets I'd agree with the decision for dealing with their own. But like I said, this activity depends on land managers and others. Not a widget machine.

[+Mudfrog]

After seeing the email exchange between the reviewer in question and Snoogans, I'm loath to see how it could have triggered this thread.

 

OK, the reviewer may have been a bit terse and perhaps could have worded things better, but there was nothing there that should have set Snoogs off. Maybe he was having a bad day, just the way some reviewers do.

I just read over the thread at Texas Geocaching and im not quite sure what all the grumbleness is about. But there may be more to this than the rest of us know. Im also thinking that Snoogans has had other negative encounters with this approver. Of course only the two of them know what has happened in the past.

 

On this one issue though, im not sure what the problem was. The two week submission guideline is reasonable. In this case there was no way of meeting that guideline, so yes, maybe leniency could have been granted for this particular event. Still, it definitely wasnt mandatory for the approver to do that. The reviewer makes a valid point,,, those at the previous event would be in the know but the rest of us were left out in the cold as far as knowing about and/or planning to attend this particular event!

 

As far as the rudeness goes, I myself just didnt see it happening in this case. Even if it can be interpreted as rude by some, i dont think the reviewer meant it that way.

 

Snoogans, i dont mean to be ruffling any of your feathers. Ive known you for a while and you have definitely been a major attribute to geocaching and a plain ole good guy to boot. Like i said above, i dont know all the particulars,, just hoping that things cool down between you two and that ya'll can work together again in the near future.

[+Snoogans]

After seeing the email exchange between the reviewer in question and Snoogans, I'm loath to see how it could have triggered this thread. 

 

OK, the reviewer may have been a bit terse and perhaps could have worded things better,  but there was nothing there that should have set Snoogs off.  Maybe he was having a bad day, just the way some reviewers do.

I just read over the thread at Texas Geocaching and im not quite sure what all the grumbleness is about. But there may be more to this than the rest of us know. Im also thinking that Snoogans has had other negative encounters with this approver. Of course only the two of them know what has happened in the past.

 

On this one issue though, im not sure what the problem was. The two week submission guideline is reasonable. In this case there was no way of meeting that guideline, so yes, maybe leniency could have been granted for this particular event. Still, it definitely wasnt mandatory for the approver to do that. The reviewer makes a valid point,,, those at the previous event would be in the know but the rest of us were left out in the cold as far as knowing about and/or planning to attend this particular event!

 

As far as the rudeness goes, I myself just didnt see it happening in this case. Even if it can be interpreted as rude by some, i dont think the reviewer meant it that way.

 

Snoogans, i dont mean to be ruffling any of your feathers. Ive known you for a while and you have definitely been a major attribute to geocaching and a plain ole good guy to boot. Like i said above, i dont know all the particulars,, just hoping that things cool down between you two and that ya'll can work together again in the near future.

OK. I can see that I have a great deal to respond to, so I'll be locking this thread until I can address as much as I care to before opening things to discussion again. (It might take a few days.)

 

First off, I'm not angry. I have admitted time and again that the approver in question was in the right. That is past, but the issue of attitude and abuse of perceived power remains even though all were not evident in my case.

 

No Mudfrog. This reviewer and I have never mixed it up before. Again, as a private user of this site, I like and respect him. But, I have also listened to many others whom I like and respect who have not much nice to say. My case is very minor. It's almost insignificant, but for a vow I've taken NOT to suffer another bad attitude on the part of a volunteer on this site. The past problems do exist, but it is other isolated occurrences from approvers and admin alike. All of which were handled out of the forums which is usually the best place for such things. I'm now embarking on a preplanned course of action as a result of these past experiences and I felt like discussing it.

 

For those who got it wrong, I'm not calling for gc.com to let ANYONE go. My point is that when you encounter a bad attitude, YOU yourself can plain and simple opt out of that person's control. If enough people do it, a problem can be highlighted. Change CAN happen.

 

Stay tuned. This thread will reopen........

[+Snoogans]

OK. This strikes me as ironic since it was your actions as an approver that Hydee called me to apologize for.

[+Snoogans]

On the sage advice of admin, I'm reopening this topic even though I haven't had time to compose a response to many of the points made and misconceptions in the replies so far.

 

This thread will stay open as long as it remains an adult discussion.....

 

 

Thanks also to those who sent email thanking me for starting this topic and keeping it level headed.

[+Yamahammer]

This topic has come up before, prolly too many times. It's the same age old dispute, Labor v. Management. Unions. Making all issues hot topics no matter how small or large. It just amazes me how this hobby/game gets into this type of dispute.

 

I've never been a fan of making your issues with another, public. Airing it out in the press. You call the person in dispute and question and make your issues known. Same if it were you that I had a problem with. You'd call me in. We'd talk. If we cannot work out the issue(s), we call in someone to make the decision on how best to proceed.

 

Bang away.

 

 

Edit: I cannot spell to save my life.

Edited August 10, 2005 by Yamahammer

[+JimmyEv]

I'm not sure what this topic is about. Is it asking when Groundspeak should fire a volunteer approver, or when one should choose a different volunteer approver (if that option is available)?

 

I'm more interested in the answer to this question: What should be done when the local geocaching community looses respect for a volunteer approver through little or no fault of his own?

[Wet Noodle]

So let me see if I understand this thread. Snoogans thinks the world revolves around him, and should be able to fire his reviewer whenever said reviewer disagrees with him and/or doesn't bow and kiss his feet. And he's posting here to try to rally support for his cause.

 

Then, when the thread doesn't go his way, he closes it, but later reopens it because someone groveled at his feet.

 

Do I have this right?

[+sbell111]

I don't think so.

[+mini cacher]

Sorry. My opinion and thoughts don't count so I've removed them.

Edited August 10, 2005 by mini cacher

[Jeremy]

Honestly if you don't take the time to read an entire thread, please don't post to it.