Are You Offended?

1k · August 21, 2005

I was tracking a thread because I want to know gc.com's position on a question that was posed. This sentence has been edited to remove reference to that thread, since I am not trying to reopen that thread.

TPTB quickly locked the thread even though there are many other threads that beat a dead horse and careen off topic for far more than 2 pages without being locked. I see no clear reason for locking this particular thread, which leaves me with the sense that the thread was locked to render tracking moot and make it more likely that we'll miss the promised response, or forget that a response was promised.

TPTB can do whatever they want when it comes to approving caches, locking threads, etc. That isn't in doubt or up for debate. It's the sense that they're trying to avoid giving a straight answer to a legitimate question that's always troubled me, regardless of what the topic, or their answer, may be. It leaves me wondering what they are so afraid of and why they have so little respect for their customers.

Do you feel that geocaching.com avoids answering legitimate questions posed in these forums? Is it reasonable to expect a straight answer (whether we like the answer or not), or should we just "move along" whenever TPTB say so? Are others offended by this behavior?

Edited August 21, 2005 by Kai Team

9.1k · August 21, 2005

Yes, I'm offended by your post. Let Rothstafari enjoy his anniversary weekend. I'm sure he will have more to say once he talks with REI next week sometime.

When a moderator locks a thread, it ought not serve as an invitation to open another thread to debate the closing of the first thread.

1k · August 21, 2005

Yes, I'm offended by your post. Let Rothstafari enjoy his anniversary weekend. I'm sure he will have more to say once he talks with REI next week sometime.

I deliberately did not mention Rothstafari because I did not want him to feel compelled to respond to this thread, or make it the easy excuse for TPTB. No one has demanded an immediate response from Rothstafari or anyone else. We've congratulated him - let him enjoy his anniversary weekend and stop hiding behind that excuse.

This is not a continuation of the previous thread - it's a new topic. I will edit the OP to remove the reference to the other thread to resolve this concern.

Edit: I see you've employed the "good offense as the best defense" strategy, but it still begs my original question. What was the harm in leaving the original thread open so that we could track the response?

Edited August 21, 2005 by Kai Team

24.7k · August 21, 2005

Yes, I'm offended by your post. Let Rothstafari enjoy his anniversary weekend. I'm sure he will have more to say once he talks with REI next week sometime.

When a moderator locks a thread, it ought not serve as an invitation to open another thread to debate the closing of the first thread.

If he had any brains and I have no reason to think otherwise, he would ignore the thread until he has an answer then check back in. and give it.

Alas this also happened with the Buxleys thread. It was locked and I'm not sure there ever was a final answer from Groundspeak.

When a mod locks a thread it doesn't change that the original topic was worthy of discussion. If the mods want to keep a list of what we can't discuss so new threads don't pop up, they can but I'm not going to be the keeper of that list I'll let the mods do the work because they are the ones inventing the rules.

August 21, 2005

<snip>

TPTB can do whatever they want when it comes to approving caches, locking threads, etc. That isn't in doubt or up for debate. It's the sense that they're trying to avoid giving a straight answer to a legitimate question that's always troubled me, regardless of what the topic, or their answer, may be. It leaves me wondering what they are so afraid of and why they have so little respect for their customers.

<snip>

I don't think they're "afraid"; they seem to have adopted a business model that respects individuals privacies and their advertisers privacies. There's is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. I'm surprised they even bother providing forums for their customers; any issues could just as easily be dealt with via email. A lot less angst that way too.

If you believe they have little respect for their customers you can always stop sending them money. I believe there is another listing site out there that will take your 30 bucks.

Edited August 21, 2005 by ZoopD|ngle

5.3k · August 21, 2005

oR it could be that the postings were starting to repeat them selves. Or that no one that was posting opions that had been to the event so in a reality no one new what they were talking about.

6.4k · August 21, 2005

oR it could be that the postings were starting to repeat them selves. Or that no one that was posting opions that had been to the event so in a reality no one new what they were talking about.

Or that the only person capable of actually answering the question had already stated he won't have an answer for a few days, so everything after his post was indeed "beating the horse" (which is pretty much what JV said). Sure, they could have left the thread open, and 75 more posts could speculate on the a correct answer; but that really makes it HARDER to track the response to the thread, not easier.

Most likely when Bryan has an answer he will unlock the original thread again (those Groundspeak folk have all sorts of wacky powers like that!) and post it.

That way anyone who really IS interested in the correct answer will get it without the proceeding 75 posts full of dreck.

Edited August 21, 2005 by Mopar

1k · August 21, 2005

...Or that no one...so in a reality no one new what they were talking about.

Since when is THAT a criteria for locking a thread! :laughing:

1k · August 21, 2005

Most likely when Bryan has an answer he will unlock the original thread again (those Groundspeak folk have all sorts of wacky powers like that!) and post it.
That way anyone who really IS interested in the correct answer will get it without the proceeding 75 posts full of dreck.

That would be cool - too bad the Mod who locked the thread didn't say that when he locked it.

My point is I want to hear the response, and I don't follow the forums closely enough to be sure I won't miss it if he starts a new thread with his response. If the tracking I put in place on the original thread will bring me the answer, then I withdraw my complaint. Of course this is speculation - "most likely".

24.7k · August 21, 2005

...TPTB can do whatever they want when it comes to approving caches, locking threads, etc. That isn't in doubt or up for debate. It's the sense that they're trying to avoid giving a straight answer to a legitimate question that's always troubled me, regardless of what the topic, or their answer, may be. It leaves me wondering what they are so afraid of and why they have so little respect for their customers....

You have two points in this. My money is on that TPTB or at least the volunteers do have limits and can bump into them. There is one case in the forums where I'd put money on them hitting that limit though there was no formal explanation. Of course there seldom is.

However when it comes to points of discussion like when you should remove your approver, if you should be able to work with a different approver, when is a mod going too far, can we make a list of approvers, should you approve your own cache etc. volunteers seem to jump in and throw a lot of smoke into a valid discussion. You're observation is dead on when it comes to this.

6.4k · August 21, 2005

Most likely when Bryan has an answer he will unlock the original thread again (those Groundspeak folk have all sorts of wacky powers like that!) and post it.
That way anyone who really IS interested in the correct answer will get it without the proceeding 75 posts full of dreck.

That would be cool - too bad the Mod who locked the thread didn't say that when he locked it.

My point is I want to hear the response, and I don't follow the forums closely enough to be sure I won't miss it if he starts a new thread with his response. If the tracking I put in place on the original thread will bring me the answer, then I withdraw my complaint. Of course this is speculation - "most likely".

Actually, mtn-man DID basically say that when he locked the previous thread:

Since it is the weekend and Rothstafari has given an explanation I am going to close this topic for now. If he wants to open it back up when he gets an assesment of the situation he can do that next week when he goes back to work. For now, since all people can do is speculate, I am going to close this topic.

1k · August 21, 2005

<snip>

TPTB can do whatever they want when it comes to approving caches, locking threads, etc. That isn't in doubt or up for debate. It's the sense that they're trying to avoid giving a straight answer to a legitimate question that's always troubled me, regardless of what the topic, or their answer, may be. It leaves me wondering what they are so afraid of and why they have so little respect for their customers.

<snip>

I don't think they're "afraid"; they seem to have adopted a business model that respects individuals privacies and their advertisers privacies. There's is nothing wrong with that whatsoever...

Point taken on being afraid: I should have said "It leaves me wondering what they are so afraid of or why they have so little respect for their customers".

It's not a privacy issue - all I've asked for is their policy on a particular topic, not details about a particular person or company, or their relationship with that entity (I agree that that's none of my business). In fact, the entity is irrelevant to me - all I want to know is what the gc.com general policy is on identifying a particular type of cache. It effects how warily I interpret the cache listings. I don't need to know the details of this relationship or any other!

2.2k · August 21, 2005

That would be cool - too bad the Mod who locked the thread didn't say that when he locked it.

Sure he did.

Since it is the weekend and Rothstafari has given an explanation I am going to close this topic for now. If he wants to open it back up when he gets an assesment of the situation he can do that next week when he goes back to work.

1k · August 21, 2005

Most likely when Bryan has an answer he will unlock the original thread again (those Groundspeak folk have all sorts of wacky powers like that!) and post it.
That way anyone who really IS interested in the correct answer will get it without the proceeding 75 posts full of dreck.

That would be cool - too bad the Mod who locked the thread didn't say that when he locked it.

My point is I want to hear the response, and I don't follow the forums closely enough to be sure I won't miss it if he starts a new thread with his response. If the tracking I put in place on the original thread will bring me the answer, then I withdraw my complaint. Of course this is speculation - "most likely".

Actually, mtn-man DID basically say that when he locked the previous thread:

Since it is the weekend and Rothstafari has given an explanation I am going to close this topic for now. If he wants to open it back up when he gets an assesment of the situation he can do that next week when he goes back to work. For now, since all people can do is speculate, I am going to close this topic.

Well no, he didn't. The words "if he wants to" give no assurance that the tracking I put in place on that topic will deliver the answer I and others requested. If he doesn't "want to", we're left hanging. And it wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

And I don't think it's Rothstafari's call to decide how certain caches will be labeled - it's really NOT about him, his decision, or the particular cache that started the other debate. The situation raised a broader question about the gc.com policy on labeling caches that they approve for a particular purpose. This is beyond any one reviewer's authority to decide.

9.1k · August 21, 2005

Selling you a clue...

Rothstafari is one of the three partners who own and operate Groundspeak, Inc.

6.4k · August 21, 2005

Well no, he didn't. The words "if he wants to" give no assurance that the tracking I put in place on that topic will deliver the answer I and others requested. If he doesn't "want to", we're left hanging. And it wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

Well, since ntn-man can't speak for Bryan, I think he worded it as best he could in the circumstances.

And I don't think it's Rothstafari's call to decide how certain caches will be labeled - it's really NOT about him, his decision, or the particular cache that started the other debate. The situation raised a broader question about the gc.com policy on labeling caches that they approve for a particular purpose. This is beyond any one reviewer's authority to decide.

Uhm, as one of the key people behind Groundspeak (right up there with Jeremy), I think he most certainly DOES have the power to decide how certain caches are labeled - on Groundspeak's geocaching site. Bryan is not "any one reviewer" by any means.

1.4k · August 21, 2005

Curt statements like "Moving Along" can be interpreted many ways, so I can see how it can be offensive.

I took it face value, so it didn't offend me. It also helped that I've met some of the people who said it. :laughing:

I think those statements, and the action to lock the thread was to protect the innocent, in this case, the <unnamed> person in question. Since the OT is a recurring theme, it doesn't hurt to wait for new developments, because someone will undoubtedly start a new thread to give us plenty of opportunities to discuss the topic again, and again, and again. :laughing:

1k · August 21, 2005

Selling you a clue...

Rothstafari is one of the three partners who own and operate Groundspeak, Inc.

Well thanks. "Selling me a clue" is a little less condescending than "move along", but it helps make my point about the lack of respect for customers. I do know that "The Leprechauns" is an alias (some might say "sock puppet") for a forum mod and approver, so I guess I'm not completely clueless.

And of course you missed my point again, which is that this isn't about a single reviewer's decision or a single cache, even if that reviewer is one to be feared by us lowly premium members.

I suspect that even "the three partners that own Groundspeak, Inc." consult with each other about policy decisions, but I could be wrong about that too. Don't hesitate to correct me in a condescending manner if I am.

Mopar - thanks for saying the same thing politely.

Edit: to remove sarcastic quotes that might have been misinterpreted.

Edited August 21, 2005 by Kai Team

9.1k · August 21, 2005

And I don't think it's Rothstafari's call to decide how certain caches will be labeled - it's really NOT about him, his decision, or the particular cache that started the other debate. The situation raised a broader question about the gc.com policy on labeling caches that they approve for a particular purpose. This is beyond any one reviewer's authority to decide.

... this isn't about a single reviewer's decision or a single cache, even if that reviewer is one to be feared by us lowly premium members

This cache arose in California. The California reviewer quite properly "kicked it upstairs" because the event didn't meet the Guidelines. "Upstairs" was Rothstafari, and he approved the event. Soon, he will check to make sure that this approval was based on an accurate understanding of the facts.

Gee, doesn't it sound like we're just continuing the prior thread?

Edited to indicate the portions of Kai Team's posts that prompted me to respond.

Edited August 21, 2005 by The Leprechauns

1k · August 21, 2005

This cache arose in California. The California reviewer quite properly "kicked it upstairs" because the event didn't meet the Guidelines. "Upstairs" was Rothstafari, and he approved the event. Soon, he will check to make sure that this approval was based on an accurate understanding of the facts.

Gee, doesn't it sound like we're just continuing the prior thread?

It sounds like you're continuing the previous thread. My question in the OP was quite different, and your response is off topic.

Of course I also allowed myself to be drawn off topic - time to go mow the lawn.

1.2k · August 21, 2005

nevermind

you would not understand anyway

Edited August 21, 2005 by LaPaglia

1.2k · August 21, 2005

There are times when the employees of the site are vague, obtuse, pithy, or just downright refuse to give an answer to a question or series of questions.

As much as it burns, it's their playground, and they get to make the rules.

Ed (who knows this reply will be thrown in his face someday).

1k · August 21, 2005

There are times when the employees of the site are vague, obtuse, pithy, or just downright refuse to give an answer to a question or series of questions.

As much as it burns, it's their playground, and they get to make the rules.

Ed (who knows this reply will be thrown in his face someday).

The lawn is mowed...must...stay...away...from the forums..... :laughing:

On some level, of course you're right. But this isn't a playground, it's a business (from Groundspeak's perspective), and being condescending or rude to your paying customers is a heck of a way to run a business.

Maybe that's the piece I've been missing - the owners still see Groundspeak too much as their playground, too little as their business. Disney World is serious business to the owners and employees, and that's what makes it such a successful playground for the rest of the world. Two very different perspectives.

1.2k · August 21, 2005

There are times when the employees of the site are vague, obtuse, pithy, or just downright refuse to give an answer to a question or series of questions.

As much as it burns, it's their playground, and they get to make the rules.

Ed (who knows this reply will be thrown in his face someday).

The lawn is mowed...must...stay...away...from the forums.....

On some level, of course you're right. But this isn't a playground, it's a business (from Groundspeak's perspective), and being condescending or rude to your paying customers is a heck of a way to run a business.

Maybe that's the piece I've been missing - the owners still see Groundspeak too much as their playground, too little as their business. Disney World is serious business to the owners and employees, and that's what makes it such a successful playground for the rest of the world. Two very different perspectives.

Yep one is a Frog and the other a Mouse.

One is a privately held corporation and one is a publicly held corporation.

One you get to talk the the owners in a public forum (even if you dont like how they say it you still can talk to them) and one you might not even know the name of the CEO, CFO and CLO.

Very different

1.4k · August 21, 2005

The lawn is mowed...must...stay...away...from the forums.....

On some level, of course you're right. But this isn't a playground, it's a business (from Groundspeak's perspective), and being condescending or rude to your paying customers is a heck of a way to run a business.

Maybe that's the piece I've been missing - the owners still see Groundspeak too much as their playground, too little as their business. Disney World is serious business to the owners and employees, and that's what makes it such a successful playground for the rest of the world. Two very different perspectives.

I agree with many of the concerns you expressed here, but I have to disagree with you on the business part.

It's refreshing to see Jeremy and the <unnamed> person join the fray to discuss some of the issues directly with us. It can be irritating if their views disagree with ours, but I can agree to disagree without much consequences.

Much better than CEOs throwing his lieutenants at us and using less desirable tactics to shut up the "bad apples" in their ranks. Public corporations are so big that small complaints usually get lost in the bureaucracy and clutter. Problems get addressed only when something VERY dramatic (rollercoaster accident) or VERY large numbers of people get involved (class action lawsuits). Yes, there are exceptions but I hope you get my point. :laughing:

August 21, 2005

There are times when the employees of the site are vague, obtuse, pithy, or just downright refuse to give an answer to a question or series of questions.

As much as it burns, it's their playground, and they get to make the rules.

Ed (who knows this reply will be thrown in his face someday).

The lawn is mowed...must...stay...away...from the forums.....

On some level, of course you're right. But this isn't a playground, it's a business (from Groundspeak's perspective), and being condescending or rude to your paying customers is a heck of a way to run a business.

Maybe that's the piece I've been missing - the owners still see Groundspeak too much as their playground, too little as their business. Disney World is serious business to the owners and employees, and that's what makes it such a successful playground for the rest of the world. Two very different perspectives.

Someone needs a hug.

:laughing:

2.1k · August 21, 2005

Do you feel that geocaching.com avoids answering legitimate questions posed in these forums?

Who cares? The game works well enough out on the street.

Sometimes a cache gets approved that we don't agree with. Sometimes a cache doesn't get approved and we don't agree with that. But if we are really interested in geocaching (as opposed to talking about geocaching) there are more caches out there than most of us will be able to find in a lifetime.

It is fairly easy for someone to sucessfully post over 100 caches in a couple of years if they set there mind to it and with only a few initial rejections. It is very easy to find 200 to 2000 caches in a couple of years if you can devote the time.

Is it reasonable to expect a straight answer (whether we like the answer or not), or should we just "move along" whenever TPTB say so?

Just move along, we are not the droids they are looking for. Geocaching is working very smoothly regardles of how questions are answered in the forums.

Are others offended by this behavior?

Not in the slightest. Many forum topics bear no resemblance to real geocaching. It is fun to have a controversial topic to get the blood boiling and to keep the forums from getting boring but a lot of what stirs people up is actually minor technical problems that could be easily ignored.

1k · August 21, 2005

The lawn is mowed...must...stay...away...from the forums.....

On some level, of course you're right. But this isn't a playground, it's a business (from Groundspeak's perspective), and being condescending or rude to your paying customers is a heck of a way to run a business.

Maybe that's the piece I've been missing - the owners still see Groundspeak too much as their playground, too little as their business. Disney World is serious business to the owners and employees, and that's what makes it such a successful playground for the rest of the world. Two very different perspectives.

I agree with many of the concerns you expressed here, but I have to disagree with you on the business part.

It's refreshing to see Jeremy and the <unnamed> person join the fray to discuss some of the issues directly with us. It can be irritating if their views disagree with ours, but I can agree to disagree without much consequences.

Much better than CEOs throwing his lieutenants at us and using less desirable tactics to shut up the "bad apples" in their ranks. Public corporations are so big that small complaints usually get lost in the bureaucracy and clutter. Problems get addressed only when something VERY dramatic (rollercoaster accident) or VERY large numbers of people get involved (class action lawsuits). Yes, there are exceptions but I hope you get my point.

Yes, I get your point, but I'm afraid you don't get mine. It is refreshing to see Jeremy and the <unnamed> person join the fray to discuss some of the issues directly with us. I'm not irritated because their views disagree with ours or mine.

I am irritated when staff are condescending and when they cut off discussions that make them uncomfortable, even when those discussions are well within forum guidelines and past practices. I would be irritated by any business where the employees are allowed to be rude to their customers.

Where's the practical difference between telling your customers to "move along" and then closing off discussion vs. "CEOs throwing his lieutenants at us and using less desirable tactics to shut up the "bad apples" in their ranks"?

August 21, 2005

yes

August 21, 2005

TPTB quickly locked the thread even though there are many other threads that beat a dead horse

The thread was locked too soon. I was at a geocaching event all day yesterday and did not get a chance to reply to my own thread. Instead of caching I guess I should have stayed home and followed the thread. Maybe if I had 35 finds and 1025 posts then my post would have stayed unlocked longer.

Its not a big deal if you know what you are in for, otherwise its like being invited to a friends house for a party and finding an Amway presentation.

This was a perfect analogy for what happened at the event. Put yourself in this situation and honestly ask yourself how you would feel.

If Rothstafari dosen't want to accept my account of the "event" all he has to do is contact FullOn to find out what happened.

It may be Groundspeak's playground, but they still have to accept some accountability for the Magellen Explorist commercial disguised as an "Event Cache"

1.2k · August 21, 2005

TPTB quickly locked the thread even though there are many other threads that beat a dead horse

The thread was locked too soon. I was at a geocaching event all day yesterday and did not get a chance to reply to my own thread. Instead of caching I guess I should have stayed home and followed the thread. Maybe if I had 35 finds and 1025 posts then my post would have stayed unlocked longer.

Its not a big deal if you know what you are in for, otherwise its like being invited to a friends house for a party and finding an Amway presentation.

This was a perfect analogy for what happened at the event. Put yourself in this situation and honestly ask yourself how you would feel.

If Rothstafari dosen't want to accept my account of the "event" all he has to do is contact FullOn to find out what happened.

It may be Groundspeak's playground, but they still have to accept some accountability for the Magellen Explorist commercial disguised as an "Event Cache"

OK I'm calling BS on this.

If Rothstafari doesn't want to accept my account of the "event" all he has to do is contact FullOn to find out what happened

Rothstafari didn't close your thread. he doesn't even know its been closed. It was closed by a forum Moderator not Rothstafari. You want to substitute mtn-man for Rothstafari in your rant then its ok. Do cast dispersions on a person that has nothing to do with the closing of your thread and is the one that has said they are going to check on it AFTER the weekend.

1k · August 22, 2005

<snip>
OK I'm calling BS on this.

<snip>

Rothstafari didn't close your thread. he doesn't even know its been closed. It was closed by a forum Moderator not Rothstafari. You want to substitute mtn-man for Rothstafari in your rant then its ok. Do cast dispersions on a person that has nothing to do with the closing of your thread and is the one that has said they are going to check on it AFTER the weekend.

FishPoet never said that Rothstafari closed his thread. FishPoet said that he could coroborate his account of the event if Rothstafari didn't believe him. It seems that you're a bit hasty "calling BS on this". :lol:

And thanks for making my point again, which is that some of the mods need to spend more time reading and less time overreacting when they think that Groundspeak is being "attacked". Isn't a forum moderator's job to moderate the emotional reactions?

NB: For those who may not know, LaPaglia is also an alias of a reviewer/moderator at gc.com.

1k · August 22, 2005

nevermind

you would not understand anyway

con·de·scen·sion

Pronunciation: "kän-di-'sen(t)-sh&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Late Latin condescension-, condescensio, from condescendere

Patronizing attitude or behavior

pa·tron·ize

Pronunciation: 'pA-tr&-"nIz, 'pa-

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing

To adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly.

2.2k · August 22, 2005

From the forum guidelines:

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

Please keep it civil.

Thank you.

Edited August 22, 2005 by Quiggle

1k · August 22, 2005

Somewhat off-topic: For the sake of clarity, and in fairness to Jeremy and Rothstafari, in the now closed and not to be revisted thread, they said:

Jeremy: I didn't personally allow this one, but if someone at Groundspeak did and it didn't turn out the way [it was supposed to be] I'd be just as upset...

I'm personally not in the business of allowing deceptive listings on the site....

Rothstafari: I approved this... I was unaware that it would be used [as it reportedly was]...I will be having a following conversation with <snip>. If in fact it was [what] people compain about, future requests will be treated with much greater scrutiny.

I have no complaint with their responses, and I have no ill will toward either of them.

Back to our regularly scheduled program...

2.1k · August 22, 2005

Please keep it civil.

Thank you.

Yes, I absolutely agree that there is too much condensation here.

2.2k · August 22, 2005

Since the other thread was locked, this one should be as well.

When Bryan gets back, he can feel free to re-open the other topic if he sees fit, but there's no need to beat this one to death anymore.

Thank you.

Are You Offended?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment