Bad Reviewers Take The Fun Out Of Geocaching.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

...He did not say that the cache couldn't be published, just that you needed to clear it with Groundspeak. That is what we are instructed to do. Some caches get the thumbs up, some are denied. Did you follow up with Groundspeak, and if so, what did they tell you? All I can see from the cache page is that you archived your own cache two days later. Then you left a reviewer note suggesting some changes. Did you also send an e-mail to your reviewer? His instructions say that e-mail is the preferred form of contact. He may never have known about the changes you were suggesting....

 

Why don't you guys run these things up the flagpole instead of leaving it to the cache owner? At least half the cases that get brough up in the forums are communiations problems. If you run it up the flagpole then you as an approver will start getting better insight as to what's good and what's not. Things would get lost in translation otherwise.

 

I see. . . Your idea here is to ask the volunteer reviewers to take on even far more of a workload, and to act as messengers, gofers, and emissaries for cachers who failed to dot their i's and cross their t's in the first place... Hmm. . . that is what I call "handholding", maybe even "enabling"... Hmmm... interesting! Pardon me if I do not get excited about this one, unless you are willing to start paying a nice salary to each reviewer.

[+PNWadmin]

Just recently, a reviewer disallowed my new cache because I had inadvertently placed it within 0.1 miles of another cache. That other cache was “temporarily unavailable” at the time, which is why it did not show up when I was researching my cache. Again, that reviewer would not respond to my queries. And the other cache remains "temporarily unavailable", and thus tieing up some prime geocaching real estate.

 

I am the reviewer who temporarily disabled your "Rider's Joy" cache because it was too close to another cache. You wrote me to say that the other cache was disabled, to which I responded:

 

Unfortunately, until "Swansong" is archived, I can't publish your cache in the current location. I would suggest moving it or contacting John & Lynn to see if they will archive "Swansong".

 

Thanks!

 

PNWadmin

 

That response came on the same day as your email and was sent from my reviewer email account directly to the email address from which your message came.

 

You mention that your spam filter accepts all mail from Geocaching.com, but the domain for my reviewer account email is gmail.com.

Edited May 22, 2006 by PNWadmin

[+fizzymagic]

You mention that your spam filter accepts all mail from Geocaching.com, but the domain for my reviewer account email is gmail.com.

Why?

 

At the very least:

• All reviewer email must be replyable. No blackhole or bitbucket return addresses.
  
• All reviewer email must come from a geocaching.com address.
  
• All reviewer email must have [GEO] or some other identifiable tag in the subject header.
  

The above are just common courtesy. Groundspeak should provide reviewers with the resources necessary to meet the above requirements.

[+Renegade Knight]

...He did not say that the cache couldn't be published, just that you needed to clear it with Groundspeak. That is what we are instructed to do. Some caches get the thumbs up, some are denied. Did you follow up with Groundspeak, and if so, what did they tell you? All I can see from the cache page is that you archived your own cache two days later. Then you left a reviewer note suggesting some changes. Did you also send an e-mail to your reviewer? His instructions say that e-mail is the preferred form of contact. He may never have known about the changes you were suggesting....

 

Why don't you guys run these things up the flagpole instead of leaving it to the cache owner? At least half the cases that get brough up in the forums are communiations problems. If you run it up the flagpole then you as an approver will start getting better insight as to what's good and what's not. Things would get lost in translation otherwise.

 

I see. . . Your idea here is to ask the volunteer reviewers to take on even far more of a workload, and to act as messengers, gofers, and emissaries for cachers who failed to dot their i's and cross their t's in the first place... Hmm. . . that is what I call "handholding", maybe even "enabling"... Hmmm... interesting! Pardon me if I do not get excited about this one, unless you are willing to start paying a nice salary to each reviewer.

 

Yup, that's my idea. Except it's really not more work.

 

You can say, "your cache isn't approved because of Rule X, Y, Z being too close to call, so you need to appeal it" Then answer the emails, forum posts, and answer Groundspeak if they ask for clarification. Or can say:

 

"Groundspeak, this cache is a tough one because of Rule X, Y, Z being such a close call, and so I'm running it by you guys" You just cc the owner when you send it so everone gets the final answer. Then the work is now in TPTBs hands and off the reviewers. Overall everone should have less work as a result as well as a more professional experience.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[Keystone]

...He did not say that the cache couldn't be published, just that you needed to clear it with Groundspeak. That is what we are instructed to do. Some caches get the thumbs up, some are denied. Did you follow up with Groundspeak, and if so, what did they tell you? All I can see from the cache page is that you archived your own cache two days later. Then you left a reviewer note suggesting some changes. Did you also send an e-mail to your reviewer? His instructions say that e-mail is the preferred form of contact. He may never have known about the changes you were suggesting....

 

Why don't you guys run these things up the flagpole instead of leaving it to the cache owner? At least half the cases that get brough up in the forums are communiations problems. If you run it up the flagpole then you as an approver will start getting better insight as to what's good and what's not. Things would get lost in translation otherwise.

There is a grand total of ONE section of the listing guidelines where it's stated that the owner MUST contact Geocaching.com. It's the section on commercial caches and caches which solicit. Once the issue is identified by the reviewer, the owner is told to either remove the content that is causing the issue, or to contact the website to get permission to include the content. Those are our marching orders. In most other cases the reviewers are able to make decisions under the guidelines on their own -- for example, whether to allow an event cache submitted 13 days prior to the event date, or a traditional cache that's hidden 500 feet away from another cache.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

"Groundspeak, this cache is a tough one because of Rule X, Y, Z being such a close call, and so I'm running it by you guys" You just cc the owner when you send it so everone gets the final answer. Then the work is now in TPTBs hands and off the reviewers. Overall everone should have less work as a result as well as a more professional experience.

 

This is how it's handled in the business world. Not to mention the fact RK is not talking about TPTB doing cache legwork (regarding permission and the like) He's just suggesting that the reviewer could politely forward questionable caches to the correct person up the chain, with the proper context, rather than requiring the cache owner "start over" every step up the ladder. The same time it takes to e-mail the owner to take it up the chain could be used to forward it themselves to the proper source.

 

This isn't more work. It's just effective communication.

[+clearpath]

I have been having trouble getting my 1st Cache approved, it's in the median of an 8 lane freeway, I call it Frogger. Now I have to go retrieve it.....wish me luck.

The same thing happened to my 'Active Volcano' cache ... man, I hate all these rules.

[+PNWadmin]

Why?

 

At the very least:

• All reviewer email must be replyable. No blackhole or bitbucket return addresses.
  
• All reviewer email must come from a geocaching.com address.
  
• All reviewer email must have [GEO] or some other identifiable tag in the subject header.
  

The above are just common courtesy. Groundspeak should provide reviewers with the resources necessary to meet the above requirements.

 

Why? Because it was the quickest and easiest way for me to set up email for my reviewer account. Groundspeak does not provide such email services. Thank you, however, for the backhanded accusation that I am lacking in common courtesy.

[+Markwell]

"Groundspeak, this cache is a tough one because of Rule X, Y, Z being such a close call, and so I'm running it by you guys" You just cc the owner when you send it so everone gets the final answer. Then the work is now in TPTBs hands and off the reviewers. Overall everone should have less work as a result as well as a more professional experience.

 

This is how it's handled in the business world. Not to mention the fact RK is not talking about TPTB doing cache legwork (regarding permission and the like) He's just suggesting that the reviewer could politely forward questionable caches to the correct person up the chain, with the proper context, rather than requiring the cache owner "start over" every step up the ladder. The same time it takes to e-mail the owner to take it up the chain could be used to forward it themselves to the proper source.

 

This isn't more work. It's just effective communication.

 

Hmmm...

 

I'd rather have Elias and Jeremy working on projects to enhance the site than to have them answer e-mails on whether or not the fact that I mention McDonalds in my cache is considered "commercial". If it's a slam dunk and I missed something in the submission, I'd trust my reviewer to be able to sort it out. Then if they can't I'd be willing to wait a little for the reviewers to talk amongst themselves to come up with a good answer that everyone could live with.

 

5 years, 62 submissions, 2 denials (deserved), 1 delayed for getting more information and a rules clarification.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I'm talking about those 1 in 62 situations where the REVIEWER suggests to the cache owner to take it upstairs. This is when it would be more effective for the reviewer to handle the forwarding. I had also assumed "upstairs" didn't necessarily mean Elias and Jeremy. There is no one in between the reviewers and Jeremy? Wow, he IS hands-on!

 

Quite frankly, I assumed that this was how it was done already.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+Team Muppet]

I have been having trouble getting my 1st Cache approved, it's in the median of an 8 lane freeway, I call it Frogger. Now I have to go retrieve it.....wish me luck.

The same thing happened to my 'Active Volcano' cache ... man, I hate all these rules.

 

How funny... I had one on a train trestle, where you had to count the amount of ties, subtract the number of trestles, and then multiply by the amount of trains going by in one hour. When you finally got all this, you subtracted the total of train cars from the last passing train.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

You mention that your spam filter accepts all mail from Geocaching.com, but the domain for my reviewer account email is gmail.com.

Why?

 

At the very least:

• All reviewer email must be replyable. No blackhole or bitbucket return addresses.
  
• All reviewer email must come from a geocaching.com address.
  
• All reviewer email must have [GEO] or some other identifiable tag in the subject header.
  

The above are just common courtesy. Groundspeak should provide reviewers with the resources necessary to meet the above requirements.

Your list of demands sounds very reasonable to me if you were dealing with a for-profit business which wished to grow even further in size and to increase its income further, and about a business which is well-equipped with a professional paid staff and professional and well-paid middle and upper managment. However, I suggest that we take a step back and realize that you are writing instead about a largely-volunteeer organization, and the fact that the vast majority of its members are "freebies", who do not pay any kind of fee at all for the services rendered to them freely, and that the remainder of the members pay a fee ranging from only $30 to 35 per year. And, I suggest that we we also take a look at the kind of (rather paltry) income which the folks who run the site must derive from on-site advertising, and at the tremendous server overhead usage incurred by the daily volume of site visitors. And well, when we have done that, I suggest that we will realize that this is not an organization with a large cadre of highly-paid executives at the top, nor an organization with a large cadre of well-paid middle managers and highly-trained, well-paid professional staffers. Yes, that may all come to pass someday if and when each of the following were to happen

• the number of geocachers grows at least 40 to 100-fold from where it is now
  
• and if the site eliminates free membership and accepts only paying members
  
• and if the site raises the monthly fee to at least $8 to $450 per month
  

but none of that has happened yet.

 

In the meantime, I'd like to remind you that you are looking at a very tiny organization with very limited

income, consisting largely of volunteer staffers, and which provides free services to any and all comers.

 

And, while I am on the air, allow me to note a fascination observation that I have made. Recently, we have seen on the forums a number of new threads started which complained loudly and whiningly about "bad reviewers", about "unreasonable rules", and about "unreasonably strict enforcement of rules", and even about lack of speedy service. I ended up doing a bit of research on the folks who stated those threads and on the thrad contributors who were most strident in their criticisms of the site, and, the sock puppet accounts aside (which obviously had zero finds and zero hides, and had never contributed to the community in any way), it turns out that several of the loudest whiners were FREE (i.e., not paid) members! They were not paying Premium members; they were not supporting the site or the community in any way, and yet each -- with their voice booming from their questionable "parasite pulpit" on the forum owned by gc.com -- was loudly demanding that their (extremely questionable and unreasonable to me) demands be met by the organization which was providing them with free services, and loudly whining about lack of "special handling" and lack of "special treatment".

 

. . .Folks, this realization just about knocks the breath out of me! I guess some folks have never learned about gratitude, about appreciation, and about helping to support organizations and people who support them. Some folks seem to know only how to whine and demand more and more. I do not need to judge those folks, but I sure feel free to point out their bizarre behavior when I see it!

[+rasj & Stacey]

The first cache I hid was rejected because it was too close to another cache (the only other cache within miles, and it was/is temporary unavailable and in need of maintainence). I decided to remove mine and hide it somewhere else. I was a bit frustrated, but rules are rules and I DID break one.

 

My second hide was also frustrating for me at first. The reviewer really busted my chops over that one. My first inclination was "How am i ever going to get a cache published with this "meany" blocking my every attempt?" "Is this personal?", "Does the reviewer somehow know me and is he/she holding a grudge?" They wanted to know how I got permission... Well, I didn't ask *anyone.* I just placed it in a nice park that I live near. That was *not* going to be good enough. I was forced to prove I had permission before it was published. I went through some of the same feelings at first. "This sucks" i said... But what seemed to suck at first, really turned into something wonderful. First off, finding the person responsible for that small park was no easy task. It was near a school, but they didn't manage it. County Park Services didn't either. (but I was able to get permission to hide/hunt caches on county park land while on the phone with them (yoo hoo!)). As it turned out, after tons of dead end phone calls, I finally managed to contact the person responsible, and we had a great conversation. Not only was he willing to give permission, he was excited about it. He was glad to host a cache and thought it might bring people to the park that otherwise would never know it was there. I met a really nice guy and maybe, just maybe, recruited a new 'cacher in the process. My bad feelings quickly turned into gratitude. Had it not been for the reviewer making me stick by the rules, I wouldn't have met a great person that not only manages park land but is behind geocaching 100%. (btw, the reviewer published that one today ) )

 

I know that at times it can be frustrating, but I think reviewers are doing a great job. Their attention do detail is amazing, and they are enforcing the rules for a reason. Now I look at it as if it were parenting. Sometimes children do not understand or even like the rules that they have to abide by, but the rules are set with their best interest in mind. When they grow up, they usually understand why those rules were there in the first place and they appreciate us for setting them. just my .02 cents

Edited May 22, 2006 by rasj

[+5¢]

You mention that your spam filter accepts all mail from Geocaching.com, but the domain for my reviewer account email is gmail.com.

Why?

 

At the very least:

• All reviewer email must be replyable. No blackhole or bitbucket return addresses.
  
• All reviewer email must come from a geocaching.com address.
  
• All reviewer email must have [GEO] or some other identifiable tag in the subject header.
  

The above are just common courtesy. Groundspeak should provide reviewers with the resources necessary to meet the above requirements.

Your list of demands sounds very reasonable to me if you were dealing with a for-profit business which wished to grow even further in size and to increase its income further, and about a business which is well-equipped with a professional paid staff and professional and well-paid middle and upper managment. However, I suggest that we take a step back and realize that you are writing instead about a largely-volunteeer organization, and the fact that the vast majority of its members are "freebies", who do not pay any kind of fee at all for the services rendered to them freely, and that the remainder of the members pay a fee ranging from only $30 to 35 per year. And, I suggest that we we also take a look at the kind of (rather paltry) income which the folks who run the site must derive from on-site advertising, and at the tremendous server overhead usage incurred by the daily volume of site visitors. And well, when we have done that, I suggest that we will realize that this is not an organization with a large cadre of highly-paid executives at the top, nor an organization with a large cadre of well-paid middle managers and highly-trained, well-paid professional staffers. Yes, that may all come to pass someday if and when each of the following were to happen

• the number of geocachers grows at least 40 to 100-fold from where it is now
  
• and if the site eliminates free membership and accepts only paying members
  
• and if the site raises the monthly fee to at least $8 to $450 per month
  

but none of that has happened yet.

 

In the meantime, I'd like to remind you that you are looking at a very tiny organization with very limited

income, consisting largely of volunteer staffers, and which provides free services to any and all comers.

 

And, while I am on the air, allow me to note a fascination observation that I have made. Recently, we have seen on the forums a number of new threads started which complained loudly and whiningly about "bad reviewers", about "unreasonable rules", and about "unreasonably strict enforcement of rules", and even about lack of speedy service. I ended up doing a bit of research on the folks who stated those threads and on the thrad contributors who were most strident in their criticisms of the site, and, the sock puppet accounts aside (which obviously had zero finds and zero hides, and had never contributed to the community in any way), it turns out that several of the loudest whiners were FREE (i.e., not paid) members! They were not paying Premium members; they were not supporting the site or the community in any way, and yet each -- with their voice booming from their questionable "parasite pulpit" on the forum owned by gc.com -- was loudly demanding that their (extremely questionable and unreasonable to me) demands be met by the organization which was providing them with free services, and loudly whining about lack of "special handling" and lack of "special treatment".

 

. . .Folks, this realization just about knocks the breath out of me! I guess some folks have never learned about gratitude, about appreciation, and about helping to support organizations and people who support them. Some folks seem to know only how to whine and demand more and more. I do not need to judge those folks, but I sure feel free to point out their bizarre behavior when I see it!

 

I agree with everything you said except for this site is not for profit. I don't know how many premium members there are on the the site, but taking a small number like 5000 and multiplying it by $30 dollars comes out to $150,000. Like I said, I don't know how many premium members there are, but I think in my heart of hearts it is a lot more than 5000, but I could be wrong. Add in all the geocoin charges, shirts and accessories, and I hope no one is going poor.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Your list of demands sounds very reasonable to me if you were dealing with a for-profit business which wished to grow even further in size and to increase its income further, and about a business which is well-equipped with a professional paid staff and professional and well-paid middle and upper managment. However, I suggest that we take a step back and realize that you are writing instead about a largely-volunteeer organization, and the fact that the vast majority of its members are "freebies", who do not pay any kind of fee at all for the services rendered to them freely, and that the remainder of the members pay a fee ranging from only $30 to 35 per year. And, I suggest that we we also take a look at the kind of (rather paltry) income which the folks who run the site must derive from on-site advertising, and at the tremendous server overhead usage incurred by the daily volume of site visitors. And well, when we have done that, I suggest that we will realize that this is not an organization with a large cadre of highly-paid executives at the top, nor an organization with a large cadre of well-paid middle managers and highly-trained, well-paid professional staffers. Yes, that may all come to pass someday if and when each of the following were to happen

• the number of geocachers grows at least 40 to 100-fold from where it is now
  
• and if the site eliminates free membership and accepts only paying members
  
• and if the site raises the monthly fee to at least $8 to $450 per month
  

but none of that has happened yet.

 

In the meantime, I'd like to remind you that you are looking at a very tiny organization with very limited

income, consisting largely of volunteer staffers, and which provides free services to any and all comers.

 

And, while I am on the air, allow me to note a fascination observation that I have made. Recently, we have seen on the forums a number of new threads started which complained loudly and whiningly about "bad reviewers", about "unreasonable rules", and about "unreasonably strict enforcement of rules", and even about lack of speedy service. I ended up doing a bit of research on the folks who stated those threads and on the thrad contributors who were most strident in their criticisms of the site, and, the sock puppet accounts aside (which obviously had zero finds and zero hides, and had never contributed to the community in any way), it turns out that several of the loudest whiners were FREE (i.e., not paid) members! They were not paying Premium members; they were not supporting the site or the community in any way, and yet each -- with their voice booming from their questionable "parasite pulpit" on the forum owned by gc.com -- was loudly demanding that their (extremely questionable and unreasonable to me) demands be met by the organization which was providing them with free services, and loudly whining about lack of "special handling" and lack of "special treatment".

 

. . .Folks, this realization just about knocks the breath out of me! I guess some folks have never learned about gratitude, about appreciation, and about helping to support organizations and people who support them. Some folks seem to know only how to whine and demand more and more. I do not need to judge those folks, but I sure feel free to point out their bizarre behavior when I see it!

 

I agree with everything you said except for this site is not for profit. I don't know how many premium members there are on the the site, but taking a small number like 5000 and multiplying it by $30 dollars comes out to $150,000. Like I said, I don't know how many premium members there are, but I think in my heart of hearts it is a lot more than 5000, but I could be wrong. Add in all the geocoin charges, shirts and accessories, and I hope no one is going poor.

Just to clear the air, in case what I wrote above was unclear: I never tried to say that the site or org is non-profit, but rather that it is a very tiny org, with a small income, and likely with a tiny budget left after basic costs have been handled. I do agree that the organization is a for-profit organization. So, I guess we are in agreement on all major points!

 

BTW, 5c, I like your avatar. It reminds me of a singing cowboy character (in space) from the wonderful film "American Astronaut".

[+Glenn]

You mention that your spam filter accepts all mail from Geocaching.com, but the domain for my reviewer account email is gmail.com.

Why?

 

At the very least:

• All reviewer email must be replyable. No blackhole or bitbucket return addresses.
  
• All reviewer email must come from a geocaching.com address.
  
• All reviewer email must have [GEO] or some other identifiable tag in the subject header.
  

The above are just common courtesy. Groundspeak should provide reviewers with the resources necessary to meet the above requirements.

Thats a very good idea. I didn't realize that the reviewers don't have a unifying email domain. But then I don't get very many email from reviews, at least I don't think so. It would be very helpful if reviews did have a common domain. I do my own manual spam removal from my email account. It could see how an email from an address that I'm not familiar with (particulary from the free email providers such as gmail.com, yahoo.com, hotmail.com, etc.) and that has a vague subject (i.e., your listing) could be mistaken as spam and deleted without even being read. If the reviewers can't use a common domain then how about publishing a list of their email addresses.

[+fizzymagic]

Why?

 

At the very least:

• All reviewer email must be replyable. No blackhole or bitbucket return addresses.
  
• All reviewer email must come from a geocaching.com address.
  
• All reviewer email must have [GEO] or some other identifiable tag in the subject header.
  

The above are just common courtesy. Groundspeak should provide reviewers with the resources necessary to meet the above requirements.

 

Why? Because it was the quickest and easiest way for me to set up email for my reviewer account. Groundspeak does not provide such email services. Thank you, however, for the backhanded accusation that I am lacking in common courtesy.

No such accusation against you at all.

 

It is unconscionable, however, that Groundspeak does not provide you with the basic tools required to do your job for them. It is yet another illustration of the utter lack of respect they have for those who hide caches.

 

I'm very sorry that Groundspeak makes you set up your own jury-rigged contact system for reviewing. It's unprofessional. It must be a little embarrassing to work for an organization that treats its best customers so poorly.

Edited May 23, 2006 by fizzymagic

[Keystone]

It's not embarrassing to volunteer my time to assist Groundspeak and the geocaching community. It's an honor and a privilege. And if it weren't for forum threads and e-mails nitpicking every aspect of the job under a microscope, it'd be pretty fun, too.

 

I am not an employee of Groundspeak, and as such I have no expectation of having an e-mail from their domain. To counteract complaints received from time to time about my Yahoo e-mail account, I no longer instruct cache hiders to send me an e-mail as the primary means of contact when there is a question about their new cache. Rather, I leave a note on the page that ends like this:

 

I look forward to hearing from you. To respond, please do NOT send me an e-mail. Leave a "Note to Reviewer" here on your cache page. I have your cache on my watchlist, and I will receive a notification when you write your note. All reviewer notes are deleted when your cache is published.

 

Thanks,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

It is a bit of extra work to keep the watchlist up-to-date, and it took awhile to rewrite all of my form letters, but the new system is working well. So, for the growing number of reviewers using this method, all communications are through Geocaching.com mail notifications.

 

As for publishing a list of all the reviewers' e-mail addresses, no thanks, I get enough spam as it is. All reviewers can be contacted through the link on their profile pages, which you must be logged in to see.

[+Klatch]

Your list of demands sounds very reasonable to me if you were dealing with a for-profit business which wished to grow even further in size and to increase its income further...

 

What part of this isn't true for Groundspeak? It's a business I willingly support, but it is a business!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Your list of demands sounds very reasonable to me if you were dealing with a for-profit business which wished to grow even further in size and to increase its income further...

 

What part of this isn't true for Groundspeak? It's a business I willingly support, but it is a business!

You have chosen one point in isolation from my rather lengthy letter. What you have ignored in asking your question above are the further points about Groundspeak which I had listed below that sentence but which you did not include in your quoted excerpt. One of those points was that the vast majority of site users are "free" non-paying members; another was that the fee paid by Premium members is only $3 per month, which is ridiculously tiny. At this time, Groundspeak is, at best, a tiny business with a tiny income, and an infant business, relying largely upon volunteers and likely-underpaid employees who are doing what they do not so much for the money but because of their love for the sport. And, it is a tiny business which grew rather haphazardly out of a still-very small grassroots hobby/sport. You may wish to refer to the remainder of my earlier letter for an even broader picture.

 

Again, if the hobby continues to grow, and if Groundspeak either starts to charge all members, and will also raise the membership fee considerably, or alternatively, if they start accepting large amounts of advertising and related promotions, then, and only then, will you likely see some of the features and changes which some folks have been requesting. In the meantime, I am rather amazed that they are managing to do as well as they are, given the facts that I have iterated in my earlier post.

 

For comparison purposes: As a spelunker, diver, rock climber, adventurer, kayaker, explorer and ex-pilot, I belong (and have belonged in the recent past) to similar website-based services which support other outdoor sports and activities, and, on those sites, the ONLY people who get to see listings (or to place listings) and who get to access any "inside information", and the only people who get to use the forums, are paying members who have also gone thru a formal application-cum-vetting/approval process as well as a peer review process, and those paying members (myself included) pay well more than the $3 per month fee asked at Groundseak, and we actually enjoy fewer features and benefits on those sites than I see on geocaching.com and its Groundspeak forums. And, as a scientist, I must say that I have belonged to professional organizations for scientists which were largely web-based sevices, and where the services were available only to paying members, and the yearly membership fee was on the order of any hundreds of dollars per year, with additional (and hefty) fees payable if a member wished to access other "optional" services available on the website.

 

The amazing fact about Groundspeak is that the vast majority of its active members/users are freebies -- they do not pay a single penny for their use of the site and its services, nor for use of the forums. And the other amazing fact is that the paying members pay all of $3 per month or less (i.e., if paying on a yearly basis.) I am impressed that Groundspeak manages to pay all server hosting, bandwidth and software/maintenance costs on such a shaky footing, much less manage much else. . .

Edited May 23, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

[Keystone]

Let's stay on topic here. The subject is "bad reviewers" who "take the fun out of geocaching." The thread should not be an examination of Groundspeak's finances or infrastructure. Thanks.

[+Klatch]

Let's stay on topic here. The subject is "bad reviewers" who "take the fun out of geocaching." The thread should not be an examination of Groundspeak's finances or infrastructure. Thanks.

 

ok

[Keystone]

Let's stay on topic here. The subject is "bad reviewers" who "take the fun out of geocaching." The thread should not be an examination of Groundspeak's finances or infrastructure. Thanks.

ok

Ummm, thanks, but that was where you were supposed to flame me for singlehandedly ruining geocaching in your state. Can't you do better?

[+CheshireFrog]

Of the thousands of caches that get reviewed every month there have been two threads this weekend that complained about reviewers, and the other one looks to be settled. That sounds like a success story to me, that people are, in general, happy with the way the system works. The thing that disturbs me when these things pop up is that there are so many suggestions for new rules and published policies covering things that are essentially working autonomously. If TPTB have to step in and write a Standard Operating Procedure defining every minute detail of how the cache submission/approval process should be handled I guarantee that it will result in most members being less satisfied and enjoying caching less.

[+gumbyatl92]

Let's stay on topic here. The subject is "bad reviewers" who "take the fun out of geocaching." The thread should not be an examination of Groundspeak's finances or infrastructure. Thanks.

 

This is exactly the sort of thing that takes the fun out of geocaching for me. Geocaching seems to get turned in to something much larger and more professional than it is. When you break it down to its roots all you get is a scavenger hunt for adults that teeters on the border of legality. I think it needs to stay grassroots and I think reviewers need to handle it in that fashion. I believe the rules should be less concise and left more open-ended. It seems to me that reviewers get bogged down in what follows the specfic set guidelines. If I ran Groundspeak I would have a trusted set of reviewers and a set of guidelines that stated the obvious (don't put it on private property, don't put guns in the cache, etc) and I would let each reviewer publish caches on his/her own common sense. I truly believe that my cache was killed because of a reviewer that was a stickler for the rules and not because he/she really thought my cache was bad or harmful to the community. I actually cancelled my membership and almost stopped geocaching after it, i felt i could go to the DMV if i wanted to deal with that sort of thing. But i realized there was more to geocaching and I continue to cache but I won't be getting a premium membership again until Groundspeak loosens up or I see a change in how cache review is handled.

[+sbell111]

This has got to be the silliest thread ever. What, exactly, is the point?

[+briansnat]

Let's stay on topic here. The subject is "bad reviewers" who "take the fun out of geocaching." The thread should not be an examination of Groundspeak's finances or infrastructure. Thanks.

 

This is exactly the sort of thing that takes the fun out of geocaching for me. Geocaching seems to get turned in to something much larger and more professional than it is. When you break it down to its roots all you get is a scavenger hunt for adults that teeters on the border of legality. I think it needs to stay grassroots and I think reviewers need to handle it in that fashion. I believe the rules should be less concise and left more open-ended. It seems to me that reviewers get bogged down in what follows the specfic set guidelines. If I ran Groundspeak I would have a trusted set of reviewers and a set of guidelines that stated the obvious (don't put it on private property, don't put guns in the cache, etc) and I would let each reviewer publish caches on his/her own common sense. I truly believe that my cache was killed because of a reviewer that was a stickler for the rules and not because he/she really thought my cache was bad or harmful to the community. I actually cancelled my membership and almost stopped geocaching after it, i felt i could go to the DMV if i wanted to deal with that sort of thing. But i realized there was more to geocaching and I continue to cache but I won't be getting a premium membership again until Groundspeak loosens up or I see a change in how cache review is handled.

 

You have to realize that these guidelines weren't developed because someone was sitting in an office dreaming up ways to restrict the sport. They were put in place in response to actual problems, issues and complaints. The restriction on caches near RRs came after the bomb squad was called out and a geocacher was arrested and prosecuted for placing a cache too close to RR tracks. The saturation guideline was effected to prevent people from placing caches right next to each other, which started happening (and if you ask me, .1 mile is still far too close). No knives or multi tools in caches was added after a park system banned geocaching because a park ranger noticed in the logbook that a pocket knife had been in the cache at one time. Others like no explosives, no firearms, no caches on school grounds or on major bridges and tunnels are just plain common sense.

 

You say to just let each reviewer use his own common sense. What do you think will happen if each reviewer is making up his own "common sense" guidelines as he goes along. Its hard enough getting all the reviewers on one page with the current guidelines. It would be chaos if everyone was doing his own thing. You think there are complaints now?

[+gumbyatl92]

Let's stay on topic here. The subject is "bad reviewers" who "take the fun out of geocaching." The thread should not be an examination of Groundspeak's finances or infrastructure. Thanks.

 

This is exactly the sort of thing that takes the fun out of geocaching for me. Geocaching seems to get turned in to something much larger and more professional than it is. When you break it down to its roots all you get is a scavenger hunt for adults that teeters on the border of legality. I think it needs to stay grassroots and I think reviewers need to handle it in that fashion. I believe the rules should be less concise and left more open-ended. It seems to me that reviewers get bogged down in what follows the specfic set guidelines. If I ran Groundspeak I would have a trusted set of reviewers and a set of guidelines that stated the obvious (don't put it on private property, don't put guns in the cache, etc) and I would let each reviewer publish caches on his/her own common sense. I truly believe that my cache was killed because of a reviewer that was a stickler for the rules and not because he/she really thought my cache was bad or harmful to the community. I actually cancelled my membership and almost stopped geocaching after it, i felt i could go to the DMV if i wanted to deal with that sort of thing. But i realized there was more to geocaching and I continue to cache but I won't be getting a premium membership again until Groundspeak loosens up or I see a change in how cache review is handled.

 

You have to realize that these guidelines weren't developed because someone was sitting in an office dreaming up ways to restrict the sport. They were put in place in response to actual problems, issues and complaints. The restriction on caches near RRs came after the bomb squad was called out and a geocacher was arrested and prosecuted for placing a cache too close to RR tracks. The saturation guideline was effected to prevent people from placing caches right next to each other, which started happening (and if you ask me, .1 mile is still far too close). No knives or multi tools in caches was added after a park system banned geocaching because a park ranger noticed in the logbook that a pocket knife had been in the cache at one time. Others like no explosives, no firearms, no caches on school grounds or on major bridges and tunnels are just plain common sense.

 

You say to just let each reviewer use his own common sense. What do you think will happen if each reviewer is making up his own "common sense" guidelines as he goes along. Its hard enough getting all the reviewers on one page with the current guidelines. It would be chaos if everyone was doing his own thing. You think there are complaints now?

 

You definitely have a point and I'm not sure I expressed what i really meant. Those sorts of things are what I would call common sense and should be in the rules. What I am really looking for is the a looser interpretation of the rules by reviewers. There are plenty of those caches that hit a grey area and I don't think they should be killed because it can interpreted as an infraction if they are not harmful or abusive caches.

[+sbell111]

... What I am really looking for is the a looser interpretation of the rules by reviewers. There are plenty of those caches that hit a grey area and I don't think they should be killed because it can interpreted as an infraction if they are not harmful or abusive caches.

Well, that is why you get to discuss cache denials in the forums. If you believe that your cache was within the guidelines and you can't get the reviewer to come around to your way of thinking, start a thread about it. Both sides of the issue will be discussed. Perhaps you cache can get listed with minor changes. Perhaps you are totally right and it can get approved as-is.

 

Etiher way, bellyaching about hypothetical denials doesn't get anything resolved.

[+briansnat]

You definitely have a point and I'm not sure I expressed what i really meant. Those sorts of things are what I would call common sense and should be in the rules. What I am really looking for is the a looser interpretation of the rules by reviewers. There are plenty of those caches that hit a grey area and I don't think they should be killed because it can interpreted as an infraction if they are not harmful or abusive caches.

 

But there is already flexibility. That's why they are guidelines and not rules. I have a cache that is 175 feet from another cache. It was allowed because one was on the top of a cliff and the other was at the bottom and it was over a half mile walk between the two.

 

I've seen caches allowed on rural bridges despite the no bridges guideline. I've seen caches approved on schoolgrounds with the permission of the administration. Some military bases (mostly in combat zones) have caches on them despite the prohibition of caches on or near military installations. I've seen caches placed within 20 feet of RR tracks because there was a fence between the cache and RR and it was on parkland.

 

The guidelines are constantly bent by reviewers for exceptional instances. If you can make a good case as to why your cache should be allowed despite an apparent guideline violation, then there is a good chance it will be published. But if you're trying to get over on the cache saturation rule just because you found a "really good" hiding place 150 feet from another cache, or place your cache on private property without permission because "everybody goes there", it probably won't fly.

Edited May 23, 2006 by briansnat

[Keystone]

This is exactly the sort of thing that takes the fun out of geocaching for me. Geocaching seems to get turned in to something much larger and more professional than it is. When you break it down to its roots all you get is a scavenger hunt for adults that teeters on the border of legality.

"Border of legality?" Then 'splain to me why about 15% of the caches I've reviewed in the past three weeks have been placed BY park systems and other land managers. No, not just placed with permission... but hidden by the State Park ranger, the State Historical Society, the County Metropark system, etc. This is a mainstream recreational activity now, like it or not. And with mainstream activities come rules and regulations. Ask mountain bikers, hunters or ATV riders about that.

 

In dealing with land managers like those who hid 30 or so caches in my review territory thus far in the month of May, the Geocaching.com listing guidelines play a pivotal role in making them comfortable in promoting this activity. The guidelines come up constantly in correspondence. Some of the most important ones include the cache contents guideline ("no knives," etc.) and the "no buried caches" guideline. Consistent enforcement of these guidelines helps ensure that geocaching remains welcome in the parks and forests that constitute our playing field.

 

What has your experience been when discussing geocaching with land managers?

[+PNWadmin]

It's not embarrassing to volunteer my time to assist Groundspeak and the geocaching community. It's an honor and a privilege. And if it weren't for forum threads and e-mails nitpicking every aspect of the job under a microscope, it'd be pretty fun, too.

 

Ding, ding, ding!

 

What I find unconscionable is that someone would take my effort to let the OP know that his contact attempts were *not* ignored and twist that into fodder for his own campaign against Groundspeak.

[+wimseyguy]

Of the thousands of caches that get reviewed every month there have been two threads this weekend that complained about reviewers, and the other one looks to be settled. That sounds like a success story to me, that people are, in general, happy with the way the system works. The thing that disturbs me when these things pop up is that there are so many suggestions for new rules and published policies covering things that are essentially working autonomously. If TPTB have to step in and write a Standard Operating Procedure defining every minute detail of how the cache submission/approval process should be handled I guarantee that it will result in most members being less satisfied and enjoying caching less.

You forgot to include the fact that it would also double or more the time it takes to get new caches listed. Then we can have more threads about how long its been since I submitted my cache as well as the current crop of sour grapes.

[+CheshireFrog]

You forgot to include the fact that it would also double or more the time it takes to get new caches listed. Then we can have more threads about how long its been since I submitted my cache as well as the current crop of sour grapes.

 

Man, that was ironic: I just submitted a question about how long it has been since I submitted my cache for review prior to reading this. But, in my defense, I was only posting a question, not complaining.

 

In any case, you're right, it would extend the review process, and probably drive some volunteer reviewers away, as well.

[+tozainamboku]

Let's stay on topic here. The subject is "bad reviewers" who "take the fun out of geocaching." The thread should not be an examination of Groundspeak's finances or infrastructure. Thanks.

 

Changing topic to "bad reviewers who are also moderators and take the fun out of the geocaching forum by not letting us change the topic of a thread"

[Keystone]

Let's stay on topic here. The subject is "bad reviewers" who "take the fun out of geocaching." The thread should not be an examination of Groundspeak's finances or infrastructure. Thanks.

 

Changing topic to "bad reviewers who are also moderators and take the fun out of the geocaching forum by not letting us change the topic of a thread"

Topics may only be edited if the moderator decides that the suggested change has the requisite "Wow factor." Sorry, but your idea just doesn't wow me.

[+Klatch]

Let's stay on topic here. The subject is "bad reviewers" who "take the fun out of geocaching." The thread should not be an examination of Groundspeak's finances or infrastructure. Thanks.

ok

Ummm, thanks, but that was where you were supposed to flame me for singlehandedly ruining geocaching in your state. Can't you do better?

 

No need for me to do better. My minions are taking up the cause!

[+Alfresco2006]

Can anyone tell me why we couldn't get a Cache site approved? It was in the middle of the White Sands Nulcear Missile testing range in Utah. Beautiful location and miles of good hiking (if you avoid the craters).

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Can anyone tell me why we couldn't get a Cache site approved? It was in the middle of the White Sands Nulcear Missile testing range in Utah. Beautiful location and miles of good hiking (if you avoid the craters).

Silly you! You had placed your cache within 528 feet of my existing cache at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site in Mercury, Nevada, and thus the reviewer was forced to disapprove your listing. My cache was in the sixteen foot high pile of radioactive plutonium waste from the breeder reactor; if you move your cache a bit further away from the glowing pile, you should be fine.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

As for publishing a list of all the reviewers' e-mail addresses, no thanks, I get enough spam as it is. All reviewers can be contacted through the link on their profile pages, which you must be logged in to see.

 

If I can sidetrack the topic for just a moment, I have a minor suggestion that would help make it much easier to contact a reviewer. Please have each reviewer make one find. We have a reviewer in our area who has zero finds. I cant use the search function on gc.com in order to find that persons profile and send them a message. If they have 1 find, then I can use that search function to get their profile. When we had our previous reviewer, I had to save a link to their profile in order to contact them. Which then got lost amidst all my other saved links.

 

Even better suggestion, how about a link to the profiles or contact addresses of all the reviewers in a state on the state's caching page?

 

Just something to make it easier to contact a reviewer if we have questions before we set up a new cache.

[+Stunod]

If I can sidetrack the topic for just a moment, I have a minor suggestion that would help make it much easier to contact a reviewer. Please have each reviewer make one find. We have a reviewer in our area who has zero finds. I cant use the search function on gc.com in order to find that persons profile and send them a message. If they have 1 find, then I can use that search function to get their profile. When we had our previous reviewer, I had to save a link to their profile in order to contact them. Which then got lost amidst all my other saved links.

 

Even better suggestion, how about a link to the profiles or contact addresses of all the reviewers in a state on the state's caching page?

 

Just something to make it easier to contact a reviewer if we have questions before we set up a new cache.

 

You can search for any member (finds or no finds) using the Find another player link on your account page.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Can anyone tell me why we couldn't get a Cache site approved? It was in the middle of the White Sands Nulcear Missile testing range in Utah. Beautiful location and miles of good hiking (if you avoid the craters).

Silly you! You had placed your cache within 528 feet of my existing cache at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site in Mercury, Nevada, and thus the reviewer was forced to disapprove your listing. My cache was in the sixteen foot high pile of radioactive plutonium waste from the breeder reactor; if you move your cache a bit further away from the glowing pile, you should be fine.

 

 

(BTW, its just Nevada Test Site.)