Jump to content

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


Snoogans
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

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?

Wet noodle,

If you have not been lurking in the forums (including the OT) for very long, you will not be able to understand this thread...so do not post just to be able to make waves. It seems you do not understand the situation nor any of the undercurrents that are happening here. --

 

Now for my answer to Snoogans,

 

I (Shirley) have not had any problem with most of the different approvers that we have had any experience with over the years. There was one that seemed to have a lot of problems that were overlooked by GC for quite a while....general rudeness on the forums & in our exchange of E-Mails or actually using a 'waiting' tactic to approve a simple cache, as a punishment of sorts after we had said something in the forums that he didn't like (we noticed quite a few caches that this happened to). After so many complaints by others...we saw a change for the most part...although we hear others that still have to deal with this individual, and that they seem to still have some problems.

 

So I see where this thread that Snoogans has been very honest and thoughtful in posting can be very helpful for all of the caching community. People who have a person contact them in any way -- by E-mail, PM or in the forums -- should be aware that politeness 'both ways' is expected -- at 'all' times when dealing with 'any' representative of this site, be they volunteers or not. It is simply a way to do business, no matter if it is face to face or through the Internet.

 

The one major problem that I have seen over the years are the approvers or mods that use their normal account to come to a thread to, what I see as "Ganging up on the Poster of the thread". It is usually started by someone with a perceived problem, with someone that is associated with the site, and they either have gone through the whole process of trying to rectify the problem before they resort to their peers in the forums (as is written in the FAQ) or are totally confused by what just happened & just needed to post in the forums to find out if others are having like experiences. I hate to see anyone post a problem anymore as the first few people are the 'normal account' reps of the site coming on to degrade the poster by saying some insulting remark or the popcorn thing.

 

If you represent something...it is best to use your public face (grit your teeth & smile no matter what) at all times, not just when it suits you and the rest of the time to "hide" behind your regular account. Someone will know who you are & it looks very childlish and unprofessional.

 

Sorry, I did not mean to write a book....

 

We are very happy with the 'currant' approvers for all the areas that we hide caches now. That means that any and all E-Mails between our approvers concerning our caches have been very pleasant, professional and quick. Thank you all.

 

Shirley~

Edited by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)
Link to comment

Peripherally related to this topic. I think that I know the 'regular' names for only two approver/mods, other than those who approve/moderate under their regular account. I kind of like it this way. This was I get to interact with them without any baggage. Hopefully, this theory works in reverse... <_<

Link to comment
...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?

If an approver loses the respect of the communty you will find there is a reason. Some people never earn respect to begin with and those should never be approvers.

 

If they lose the respect of the community contrarians (who will never like any approver) no big deal. The community knows who those cachers are and discounts their opinions accordingly.

Link to comment

I'm happy with my approver---never had a problem. Because of this, I can not relate to Snoogans' issue personally. Here is where I think you draw the line: If the approver is following guidelines and not posting hostile or sarcastic comments, he/she is vindicated. In this case, I do not see where the approver overstepped the bounds. I do understand Snoogans' frustration with not being able to get the approval, but he was not following guidelines and now admits he was in error. Seems like he's over it and we can all move on with our lives now.

Link to comment

I dunno...He never said that this was about the approval/archival of this individual cache, as he stated early on that he knew it didn't meet the guidelines. What Snoogans said was that he had an issue with how it was all handled.

 

Now, I've got no beef with any approver, as the only issues that have come up were quickly solves, such as the approver in question wanting to know why a Vegas cacher was placing caches in Plano, TX, and after a quick note from me explaining that I'd moved everything was good.

 

However, I do see from my readings over in the Texas Geocaching forums, topics in the past here, and in the forums over at TerraCaching that there appears to be a long standing issue with many of the locals and this approver. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but to me it looks like Snoogans is trying to ask how many people does an approver have to tick off to get GCs attention?

Link to comment
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?

:P:):):);):lol::huh:

 

So, you hide behind a sock to try to derail threads.

 

Do I have this right?

 

Please let the adults have a discussion.

Link to comment
I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but to me it looks like Snoogans is trying to ask how many people does an approver have to tick off to get GCs attention?

YES, that's it exactly. :lol:

 

OK. That's what I thought I was saying all along. I'm often told that my language is too obscure. Maybe that's why post after post makes a different meaning of my words. Thanks for boiling it down to a few words.

 

I do not dispute that the approver had the rules on his side. His attitude was what I took issue with. Again, this was actually a minor instance, but because of past experiences with another approver, and those of my friends with this approver, I choose NOT to let it slide.

 

I'm an end user with a pretty level headed reputation in these forums. If I *FLIP OUT* the only damage I've done is to my reputation.

 

Everyone has a bad day from time to time, but when a representative of any business (paid or not) has a bad day, more than just that person's reputation can sustain damage.

 

This situation is now the 5th time I've had to deal directly with a bad attitude on the part of a representitive of this site. I choose not to let it sour me on geocaching or gc.com. But still, I won't take it anymore either.

Link to comment

As I see it nothing positive was accomplished as a result of this minor confrontation. :huh: A volunteer lost face, a few more "paying" subscribers became annoyed with GC.com and group of geocachers were denied the opportunity to meet a rather prolific and very nice geocacher from out of state. No one was asking to break any laws or endanger any one's health or safety.

 

I received an unsolicited apology from GC in the past. It gave me the impression that they do care about their subscribers and were reasonable people that put up with a lot of "bologna". In some cases though, the volunteers almost seem to be on a power trip. It appears to some of us that depend on them that they allow personal feelings or prejudices affect their decisions.

 

If there is oversight of the volunteer approvers maybe they should be told, " Hey dude, lighten up. It's only a game. Let them have their fun." :lol:

 

Jim

Link to comment
... In some cases though, the volunteers almost seem to be on a power trip. It appears to some of us that depend on them that they allow personal feelings or prejudices affect their decisions....

If you have recieved an unsolicited appology, and you have been on the recieving end of a power trip then hopefully you can give a good opinion on where the line is for when it's time to let a volunteer go.

Link to comment

The apology was from Jeremy not a volunteer over a minor misinterpretation of tone in a post, a frequent occurrence on such forums.

 

The intent of my post was to point out of why people geocache not to draw more lines. Such drastic measures as letting someone go can only be made by those with the necessary behind the scenes information and stats.

 

As for dealing with the power trips I simply don't list here at the present time. I gladly pay my $30 dollars, read and follow the forums and geocache when time and health allow.

 

I do think this discussion presents an excellent opportunity for GC.com to tweak the approval process for the better. In some instances, such as the one that prompted this thread, a little less heavy hand would be much appreciated.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Prime Approver posted a reviewer note for 1st Saturdays in The Armpit of the

Universe (Event Cache) at 8/1/2005

 

Log Date: 8/1/2005

I've been cutting people some slack on this one, since it's a relatively new

guideline (5 months old). But only 5 days notice, when the rule is 14? I don't think

so.

 

> There was an announcement to 50 people at Texas Flash's

> Geo-opoly event last Saturday and also in my logs.

 

That's exactly what we're trying to get away from. Events are supposed to be for

anyone, not just a clique who happened to be in the right place to hear about it.

Therefore, events need to be posted early enough for everyone to find out about it.

 

And no one is say you can't have impromptu get-togethers. There are other methods of

alerting people, which you've obviously made use of. But if you want to list them as

GC events, they have to posted early enough for everyone to find out about them.

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't see what the fuss is about. I dont see anything wrong with this response.

Link to comment
Prime Approver posted a reviewer note for 1st Saturdays in The Armpit of the

Universe (Event Cache) at 8/1/2005

 

Log Date: 8/1/2005

I've been cutting people some slack on this one, since it's a relatively new

guideline (5 months old). But only 5 days notice, when the rule is 14? I don't think

so.

 

> There was an announcement to 50 people at Texas Flash's

> Geo-opoly event last Saturday and also in my logs.

 

That's exactly what we're trying to get away from. Events are supposed to be for

anyone, not just a clique who happened to be in the right place to hear about it.

Therefore, events need to be posted early enough for everyone to find out about it.

 

And no one is say you can't have impromptu get-togethers. There are other methods of

alerting people, which you've obviously made use of. But if you want to list them as

GC events, they have to posted early enough for everyone to find out about them.

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't see what the fuss is about. I dont see anything wrong with this response.

The negative insinuation that the motive was cliquish was what I took issue with. I just wanted to welcome JoGPS to town and get as many people there as possible. My motive was not to post the event at the last moment to effectively exclude anyone. To make such an assumption is overtly offensive. It was a poor choice of words that fell right in place with the word of mouth on this approver.

 

Events are supposed to be for anyone, not just a clique who happened to be in the right place to hear about it.

 

Later, (the part you DIDN'T post) the further use of the definition of "clique" to save face when it was evident that the word was used in the negative context was insulting to my intelligence and downright lame. :lol:

 

Did I say gc.com should fire him for this? No. I opted out of his control. If it takes a month to get a cache approved now, so be it. He won't have the opportunity to insult me again. Win/Win

 

Now, some folks just have thin skin, or can't take "No" for an answer...... They will opt out to pout. Still, there's some truth to every myth. If a majority of hiders refused to work with an approver, underline that approver in red ink, so to speak.

 

As I said in the OP, this entire process is voluntary. I'll cast my vote in future cache submissions with a note for this approver to pass my bye.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
Prime Approver posted a reviewer note for 1st Saturdays in The Armpit of the

Universe (Event Cache) at 8/1/2005

 

Log Date: 8/1/2005

I've been cutting people some slack on this one, since it's a relatively new

guideline (5 months old). But only 5 days notice, when the rule is 14? I don't think

so.

 

> There was an announcement to 50 people at Texas Flash's

> Geo-opoly event last Saturday and also in my logs.

 

That's exactly what we're trying to get away from. Events are supposed to be for

anyone, not just a clique who happened to be in the right place to hear about it.

Therefore, events need to be posted early enough for everyone to find out about it.

 

And no one is say you can't have impromptu get-togethers. There are other methods of

alerting people, which you've obviously made use of. But if you want to list them as

GC events, they have to posted early enough for everyone to find out about them.

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't see what the fuss is about. I dont see anything wrong with this response.

The negative insinuation that the motive was cliquish was what I took issue with. I just wanted to welcome JoGPS to town and get as many people there as possible. My motive was not to post the event at the last moment to effectively exclude anyone. To make such an assumption is overtly offensive. It was a poor choice of words that fell right in place with the word of mouth on this approver.

 

Events are supposed to be for anyone, not just a clique who happened to be in the right place to hear about it.

 

Later, (the part you DIDN'T post) the further use of the definition of "clique" to save face when it was evident that the word was used in the negative context was insulting to my intelligence and downright lame. :lol:

 

Did I say gc.com should fire him for this? No. I opted out of his control. If it takes a month to get a cache approved now, so be it. He won't have the opportunity to insult me again. Win/Win

 

Now, some folks just have thin skin, or can't take "No" for an answer...... They will opt out to pout. Still, there's some truth to every myth. If a majority of hiders refused to work with an approver, underline that approver in red ink, so to speak.

 

As I said in the OP, this entire process is voluntary. I'll cast my vote in future cache submissions with a note for this approver to pass my bye.

Snoogans, is this your first run in (misunderstanding) with this approver? Just a question.

 

:huh:

Link to comment
<snip>

and (a) group of geocachers were denied the opportunity to meet a rather prolific and very nice geocacher from out of state.

<snip>

That part of that sentence keeps nagging at me. I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but it comes out like unless you get a smiley it isn't worth the effort to go meet a prolific and nice geocacher from out of state.

 

Sorry about that JoGPS. :D

Link to comment
... but in my tenure here, one approver has been banned from servicing my and my family's cache submissions...

 

Recently, a much less negative exchange happened between me and a local approver...

I think I am beginning to get a picture here that this is not a one sided issue. Conflict seldom is one sided. What are the odds of a cacher having bad blood with two volunteer approvers? (NO, no, no, everyone... PLEASE don't answer that question with anecdotal evidence from all over the country.)

 

My point, my position actually, is that there is never a need to get in close and lock horns with an approver or to bring the issue to the forums where we know there will be a flaming. Your decision to add a note to your cache page requesting that a specific approver keep their hands off is fine but to bring it to the forum skews the perception of the problem and stirs up trouble unnecessarily.

 

If you keep having trouble with approvers in the future you might want to review your contacts to them or your forum posts to see if there is anything you said that might be offensive to them.

 

I suggest that the appropriate action when an approver bugs us is… complain to the appeals address then put down the keyboard and slowly back away.

 

Might be a good idea to make a "calm" review of all the correspondence prior to complaining.

Link to comment
<snip>

and (a) group of geocachers were denied the opportunity to meet a rather prolific and very nice geocacher from out of state.

<snip>

That part of that sentence keeps nagging at me. I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but it comes out like unless you get a smiley it isn't worth the effort to go meet a prolific and nice geocacher from out of state.

 

Sorry about that JoGPS. :rolleyes:

That jumped out at me too. Noone's taking out a restraining order on Jo :D You can still go see him. I suspect it'd just as fun with or without a smiley. And if you want a smiley for going to see him, I BET you could convince him to go out and find a cache with you or grab a cache on the way home.

Link to comment
...He won't have the opportunity to insult me again. Win/Win

If this person has chosen, through the mechanism of GC.com, to insult you and others in the past, what makes you think he won't continue doing it outside the system? And if he is truely a jerk, opting out of his control is not really a win/win situation; it's only a win situation for you, and then only if he chooses to avoid you. :D:rolleyes:

Link to comment

I think a lot of folks are missing the point. (Maybe I'm missing the point, but here goes anyway.)

 

Snoogans, in his OP, is suggesting that he personally fired his approver. Not from gc.com, but from reviewing any of his caches. He let us know that you can side-step issues with the approver assigned to your area without resorting to quiting geocaching. Of course, he is relying on someone else to pick up the slack and that might not happen. TPTB could very well say either get along with your reviewer or hit the road. Still, it's a better solution than none.

 

I think he has a brilliant idea and I will be making this very same suggestion to everyone who personally complains to me about our reviewer. I wouldn't blame them in the least if they opted-out in such a way as Snoogans is suggesting.

Link to comment

Please keep in mind that this suggestion is not supported by geocaching.com. The queue is organized by area, so unless another volunteer is covering your territory for another reason your listing will not be seen.

 

To have a cache listed on geocaching.com it has to be listed by a geocaching.com volunteer. If a volunteer is not upholding their responsibility then please follow the procedures that are in place. You may file a complaint with Groundspeak by emailing appeals@Groundspeak.com.

Link to comment
If a volunteer is not upholding their responsibility then please follow the procedures that are in place. You may file a complaint with Groundspeak by emailing appeals@Groundspeak.com.

I regret to report that following the procedures appears not to work.

...Everything else will go in a new topic.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
<snip>

and (a) group of geocachers were denied the opportunity to meet a rather prolific and very nice geocacher from out of state.

<snip>

That part of that sentence keeps nagging at me. I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but it comes out like unless you get a smiley it isn't worth the effort to go meet a prolific and nice geocacher from out of state.

 

Sorry about that JoGPS. :D

I believe that Snoogans point is that many people were denied the opportunity because, without a cache listing, they weren't aware of it. There are other methods of getting the word out, (forums, word-of-mouth, etc...) but none as efficient or visible as a cache listing.

Link to comment
Just so we can get in context:

 

APPROVER's archive note:

 

I'm afraid I'm unable to list your event. The general rule for events is that they need to be submitted *at least* 2 weeks prior to the event date (as noted in the guidelines). At certain times, it may be a full 3 days before a reviewer is able to look at a cache submission. This, combined with the fact that new cache notices are only sent out once a week, means that it may be a full 10 days before the information about the event is distributed via email. And since a lot of people don't check their email every day, or only have access to email at work, the time frame can be even longer.

Because of this, it's necessary for people to submit events in enough time to ensure that a significant number of people can be made aware of it. While it may be possible to directly notify a few people about it, events are meant to be open to everyone, so there needs to be enough time for people to find out about it through normal channels.

 

I feel that this is a very valid reason for not approving the event. Since it was submitted only 5 days befor the event, and it takes up to 10 days for the listing to be sent out, that means that the listing would not be sent out for up to 5 days after the event is over.

 

Only the people at the other event would know about it before it happens, so the argument that "many people were denied the opportunity because, without a cache listing, they weren't aware of it" is invalid, because they likely wouldn't have known about it either way unless thay were part of the group at the previous event.

 

Also, in the Texas thread I see the approver being called "pompous a**" Pompous" (again) "annoying" and compared to the "soup Nazi" and accused of "thumping the Geo-Bible"

 

His offense? using the term "clique" and refusing to approve an event that is well beyond the time limit for approval, and the listing would likely not come out until after the event was over.

 

Now, I don't know the history with this approver, and it sounds like there have been a lot of problems in the past, but as an unbiased outsider, as far as this particular case goes, I think y'all need to get a grip.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
I think a lot of folks are missing the point. (Maybe I'm missing the point, but here goes anyway.)

 

Snoogans, in his OP, is suggesting that he personally fired his approver. Not from gc.com, but from reviewing any of his caches. He let us know that you can side-step issues with the approver assigned to your area without resorting to quiting geocaching. Of course, he is relying on someone else to pick up the slack and that might not happen. TPTB could very well say either get along with your reviewer or hit the road. Still, it's a better solution than none.

 

I think he has a brilliant idea and I will be making this very same suggestion to everyone who personally complains to me about our reviewer. I wouldn't blame them in the least if they opted-out in such a way as Snoogans is suggesting.

Who would have ever thunkt we would agree upon something. ;):(:huh:

Link to comment
I think a lot of folks are missing the point.  (Maybe I'm missing the point, but here goes anyway.)

 

Snoogans, in his OP, is suggesting that he personally fired his approver.  Not from gc.com, but from reviewing any of his caches.  He let us know that you can side-step issues with the approver assigned to your area without resorting to quiting geocaching.  Of course, he is relying on someone else to pick up the slack and that might not happen.  TPTB could very well say either get along with your reviewer or hit the road.  Still, it's a better solution than none.

 

I think he has a brilliant idea and I will be making this very same suggestion to everyone who personally complains to me about our reviewer.  I wouldn't blame them in the least if they opted-out in such a way as Snoogans is suggesting.

Who would have ever thunkt we would agree upon something. ;):(:huh:

but here is the problem with this concept.

 

Please keep in mind that this suggestion is not supported by geocaching.com. The queue is organized by area, so unless another volunteer is covering your territory for another reason your listing will not be seen.

 

To have a cache listed on geocaching.com it has to be listed by a geocaching.com volunteer. If a volunteer is not upholding their responsibility then please follow the procedures that are in place. You may file a complaint with Groundspeak by emailing appeals@Groundspeak.com.

 

 

It has been stated that it not going to happen. Since Hydee is the person that makes the decision in cases like this all the posting on a cache page saying I want someone else (however its worded) isn't going to do you any good.

 

[bold added for emphasis]

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment
Please keep in mind that this suggestion is not supported by geocaching.com. The queue is organized by area, so unless another volunteer is covering your territory for another reason your listing will not be seen. 

 

To have a cache listed on geocaching.com it has to be listed by a geocaching.com volunteer. If a volunteer is not upholding their responsibility then please follow the procedures that are in place. You may file a complaint with Groundspeak by emailing appeals@Groundspeak.com.

Sorry Hydee, I don't want to stir up trouble, but I DID want to discuss this issue.

 

With this in mind, I would close this thread, but I have been asked to let an admin close it. The topic is starting to chase its tail, so I invite admin to close it when they feel it's right. Thanks to everyone who understood that this issue needs to be discussed from time to time and for keeping it level headed.

 

In summary, my choice to fire the next volunteer who behaved less than professionally toward me was made over a year ago. Hydee and my local geocaching friends know why. I am now making good on a promise to myself. I will stay the course.

 

As a professional who represents my own company in enforcing its rules, I wouldn't have kept my job for 18 years, or risen into middle management, if I had maintained anything less than a professional attitude under fire for doing my job. I expect nothing less of the employees and volunteers at this site. 1 Major and 4 pretty minor infractions in under three years isn't real bad, but that's just me.

 

For those that just don't get it, the incident of this event being denied has nothing to do with my course of action. I took issue with the attitude ONLY. It was the course of action that I cared to discuss. Thanks for your replies.

 

The lesson to submit an event at least 2 weeks ahead of time has been learned well by me.

 

I stand behind my reputation as a level headed and mostly thoughtful poster to the more serious topics on this site. Anyone who wishes to attach a more sinister motive for why I posted this thread seriously needs to get a grip.

 

I truly hold no animosity toward P.A.'s private user account, but I no longer wish to have him approve my caches. That's about as plainly as I can put it.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
I think a lot of folks are missing the point.  (Maybe I'm missing the point, but here goes anyway.)

 

Snoogans, in his OP, is suggesting that he personally fired his approver.  Not from gc.com, but from reviewing any of his caches.  He let us know that you can side-step issues with the approver assigned to your area without resorting to quiting geocaching.  Of course, he is relying on someone else to pick up the slack and that might not happen.  TPTB could very well say either get along with your reviewer or hit the road.  Still, it's a better solution than none.

 

I think he has a brilliant idea and I will be making this very same suggestion to everyone who personally complains to me about our reviewer.  I wouldn't blame them in the least if they opted-out in such a way as Snoogans is suggesting.

Who would have ever thunkt we would agree upon something. ;);):(

but here is the problem with this concept.

 

Please keep in mind that this suggestion is not supported by geocaching.com. The queue is organized by area, so unless another volunteer is covering your territory for another reason your listing will not be seen.

 

To have a cache listed on geocaching.com it has to be listed by a geocaching.com volunteer. If a volunteer is not upholding their responsibility then please follow the procedures that are in place. You may file a complaint with Groundspeak by emailing appeals@Groundspeak.com.

 

 

It has been stated that it not going to happen. Since Hydee is the person that makes the decision in cases like this all the posting on a cache page saying I want someone else (however its worded) isn't going to do you any good.

 

[bold added for emphasis]

Resistance is futile, huh? :huh:

 

I really don't care for that. It's that sort of attitude that turns folks off. ;)

 

You would have done better to just let Hydee's words stand alone and leave the whole "Sergeant at Arms" attitude out of this thread. Thanks for proving my point quite nicely. :(

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
I think a lot of folks are missing the point.  (Maybe I'm missing the point, but here goes anyway.)

 

Snoogans, in his OP, is suggesting that he personally fired his approver.  Not from gc.com, but from reviewing any of his caches.  He let us know that you can side-step issues with the approver assigned to your area without resorting to quiting Geocaching.  Of course, he is relying on someone else to pick up the slack and that might not happen.  TPTB could very well say either get along with your reviewer or hit the road.  Still, it's a better solution than none.

 

I think he has a brilliant idea and I will be making this very same suggestion to everyone who personally complains to me about our reviewer.  I wouldn't blame them in the least if they opted-out in such a way as Snoogans is suggesting.

Who would have ever thunkt we would agree upon something. ;);):(

but here is the problem with this concept.

 

Please keep in mind that this suggestion is not supported by Geocaching.com. The queue is organized by area, so unless another volunteer is covering your territory for another reason your listing will not be seen.

 

To have a cache listed on Geocaching.com it has to be listed by a Geocaching.com volunteer. If a volunteer is not upholding their responsibility then please follow the procedures that are in place. You may file a complaint with Groundspeak by emailing appeals@Groundspeak.com.

 

 

It has been stated that it not going to happen. Since Hydee is the person that makes the decision in cases like this all the posting on a cache page saying I want someone else (however its worded) isn't going to do you any good.

 

[bold added for emphasis]

Resistance is futile, huh? :huh:

 

I really don't care for that. It's that sort of attitude that turns folks off. ;)

 

You would have done better to just let Hydee's words stand alone and leave the whole "Sergeant at Arms" attitude out of this thread. Thanks for proving my point quite nicely. :(

That does not change the fact the it isn't going to happen. It needed to be repeated because it didn't seem to be understood by some of those posting. You would have done better to heed Hydee's words. You prove the point quite nicely.

To respect your request of discussing this calmly Ill opt out of any additional postings and let the thread continue. I have calmly stated my information without resorting to using any labels to describe anyone.

 

Happy Geocaching

CO Admin.

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment
That does not change the fact the it isn't going to happen.

Oh brother. :huh:;);) Yea, there was also NEVER going to be an Off Topic Forum on this site too as I recall. ;) No sheep am I. :(

 

The topic is starting to chase its tail, so I invite admin to close it when they feel it's right.
Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
Please keep in mind that this suggestion is not supported by geocaching.com. The queue is organized by area, so unless another volunteer is covering your territory for another reason your listing will not be seen.

 

To have a cache listed on geocaching.com it has to be listed by a geocaching.com volunteer. If a volunteer is not upholding their responsibility then please follow the procedures that are in place. You may file a complaint with Groundspeak by emailing appeals@Groundspeak.com.

While I appreciate this is how it is done, it could be now is a good time to look at some alternatives.

 

In a recent conversation with some fellow cachers, they were telling me they could tell when a certain person was using the local generic reveiwer account. Apparently, (I say apparently as we haven't placed a cache in a while) they said they could tell when the new person was using the account versus the other person simply from the tone of the message. I won't repeat everything said, but I'll summarize as they were much happier with the new person.

 

Heck, for all we know, it's all the same person, but the point is the tone of the emails were starkly different. They didn't like that "other person."

 

I don't know of any real world situation where if you had a problem with one person, say a sales person or an account rep, that you couldn't ask for someone else to work with. You don't have to ask to talk to the CEO of the company to tell them you're not getting along with your rep, you just ask to be passed on to someone else.

 

Considering each cache placement is "equity" this site enjoys, every unprofessional encounter a user is faced with discourages their willingness to place another cache. How many folks have been turned off geocaching altogether because of this?

 

It might be time to reflect and make the process a bit more friendly. Implement a way for folks to opt-out of any particular approver to save continued conflict and then you can see if personell changes might be in order.

Link to comment

Where is an ammo can full of golf balls and a giant slingshot when you need it?? ;)

 

Ok, so after reading through most of this thread, I really do not want to venture too far past my comment above.

 

Yes there is a 14 day rule for events and yes there are other ways to have a quick get together that was not planned, but it just seems in my OP the reviewer seemed to become a little too personal when he made the whole clique remark. I have met a reviewer in the past and that person was a nice person to talk to. I can only imagine how thankless the job can be sometimes, and in an ideal situation the reviewer does not mix his personal life with his reviewing duties.

 

My OP bottom line and Snoogans stated this perfect, He is NOT mad the cache was not approved, he is MAD on some of the words the reviewer used to slap his wrist for breaking the guidelines.

 

::fire shield up::

**darn spell check edit**

Edited by geoholic28
Link to comment

I appreciate the time and effort that the volunteer reviewers put in to make sure that we all have plenty of caches to seek. Living in Montana, we only have one reveiwer (that I am aware of), so there is no way around that individual if you don't like the way they conduct business. I have repeatedly suggested that there should be some mechanism to allow cachers an 'alternative route' to cache approval.

 

I know that several local cachers don't like the local reviewer (for a variety of reasons, some business practice related, most not), and don't want to go through that person. I have decided that I will place fewer caches on gc.com, and have moved one to another site. I will still place them here, though. I don't like not being able to choose (or at least opt out) who will review my caches here, but that is the way this site is set up. If I really don't like how it works, there are other places to go. Lately, I have been seeing a lot of positive changes on gc.com. Hopefully, the reviewer selection (or de-selection) process, for cache placers, is something that is considered in the near future.

 

If nothing else, It seems like the current process would hinder the fun and challenge that a reviewer would have in solving a good puzzle cache, or surprising multi-cache. I know that in some areas, the reviewers will 'pass off' an offset cache to another reviewer if they know they will seek it themselves. In our region, that doesn't seem to be an option the reviewer takes. It might not exist as an option, if there is no back-up reviewer to send it to. That might be something else to consider- a plan B!

Link to comment
In a recent conversation with some fellow cachers, they were telling me they could tell when a certain person was using the local generic reveiwer account. Apparently, (I say apparently as we haven't placed a cache in a while) they said they could tell when the new person was using the account versus the other person simply from the tone of the message. I won't repeat everything said, but I'll summarize as they were much happier with the new person.

 

Since when are there local generic reviwer accounts used by different people? I always understood that if there was a reviewer account, there was an individual attached to it, not several people.

Link to comment
In a recent conversation with some fellow cachers, they were telling me they could tell when a certain person was using the local generic reveiwer account. Apparently, (I say apparently as we haven't placed a cache in a while) they said they could tell when the new person was using the account versus the other person simply from the tone of the message. I won't repeat everything said, but I'll summarize as they were much happier with the new person.

 

Since when are there local generic reviwer accounts used by different people? I always understood that if there was a reviewer account, there was an individual attached to it, not several people.

Since when? I don't know, but it happens.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...