Jump to content

Revision of Review process


Recommended Posts

Why not just let the reviewers "officially" use trusted volunteer helpers? Anytime they see a cache near a school or a bridge or whatever might be a guideline violation, they could ask the closest volunteer to check it out for them. Caches placed in questionable places would take much longer to approve so that would also discourage people from placing caches in borderline locations.

This site lists cache descriptions so that we finders can go seek them. They don't place them, they don't endorce the location of any cache. They check the cache against a few listing guidelines and if they meet the guidelines they list the cache.

 

The cache owner is the one responsible for the cache, it's location, and dealing with any issues that come up. If this site ever did start endorsing a cache or it's location this site would start becoming responsible for the caches it lists and that would make geocaching as we know it non-viable.

Link to comment

I was talking to anothe cacher tonight and this topic came up. I think a lot of responses will be predictable, but I thought I would bring up his ideas anyway. I think they have merit, but also (of course) associated problems.

 

Premises:

1. There are some caches placed in a questionable manner or in questionable places which are not easy to determine from written information. Further, caches placed by beginners are often lacking in some aspect which could be easily improved, even though they might not technically violate any guidelines.

 

2. There are caches placed which, while technically OK, are destined to be regarded by many as "lame".

 

3. The necessity for review prior to publication varies depending on the skill, experience, and reputation of the placer. i.e. newbies probably require closer checknig than old-timers in most cases.

 

I would like to limit debate on the premises if possible. If you disagree with the premises, the expected response would simply be "no changes to the current system would be justified".

 

Assuming these premises are valid then, would you favour modification of current reviewing practices along the lines I shall suggest or do you have other ideas?

 

Suggestions:

1. Those cache submissions that are simply "OK to go", would simply be published as is done today. But for those that the reviewer finds "need further information", a team of 5 volunteer cachers (hereinafter called "peer reviewers") would be dispatched to find and check out the new cache. They would check for whatever specific concerns the reviewer has, such as "is the cache too close to the RR?" or "will seekers be putting themselves in unnecessary danger or trespassing", confirm the ratings and coordinates, and note if they have any other concerns. Their concerns could be limited to guidelines or they could be given authority to judge quality issues as well. They would each vote yea or nay and the majority rules. These cachers would not be allowed to trade, change the cache without the owner's permission, or claim the FTF. They could however remove any items that are clearly prohibited and ask the owner to advise for return (at owner's expense) or disposal. They would not be allowed to log the assigned cache online until after the FTF.

 

2. The peer reviewers would be automatically assigned to perhaps the first 10 submissions by a newbie as a matter or policy.

 

3. "Veteran cachers" (definition and designation authority open to debate) could be designated to have automatic approval authority on their own submissions

 

Reasoning (numbers relate to suggestion numbers above):

1. The volunteer reviewer would not have to spend his/her own time investigating, writing emails, or discussing back and forth with the hider. Arguments over the reviewer's discretion would be reduced by having a more or less automatic peer review process. Simple problems could be found and corrected quickly prior to publication.

 

2. Until a cacher establishes a track record for following guidelines and shows they reasonably understand the concepts of caching, their submissions should be looked at a little more closely. This would also give the opportunity for more seasoned members to "mentor" the newbies and should help improve overall new cache quality.

 

3. Why do we spend approver time on people who have clearly shown that they do not need supervision? It would be kinda like granting them "limited approver" status- they can approve caches, but only their own. This authority could be revoked if abused.

 

Cons that I see:

Possible increased approval waits on newbie caches- maybe, maybe not.

Perhaps difficulty in getting trusted peer reviewers.

Well.... just plain resistance to change.

 

What thinks ye?

Answer to the Premises:

1. That's a blanket statement that doesn't apply to all newbies. I have seen some great cache hides by beginners.

 

2. Not all perceptions are created equal. Neither can "Lame" be applied equally to all caches by all hiders.

 

3. Not all veterans adhere to the guidelines. My perception is the ones that don't, believe they know better than the reviewer and should be the exception to the rule.

 

To answer "no changes to the current system would be justified" doesn't allow anybody to support their debate against the premise. That's a no go by me.

 

Suggestion 1 puts too much work in a simple process and it isn't equally applied as noted in other caching communities based on conversations I've had with other folks involved in those communities.

 

That makes Suggestion 2 a no go when put on the same basis as Suggestion 1.

 

Suggestion 3 still runs into observations on Premise 1. Some veterans believe the guidelines shouldn't have to apply to them all of the time.

 

I believe that answers to your reasonings why this wouldn't work as well as you might think. What typically looks good on paper normally does not work well in practice if you have to put too much human interference in place. Analagous to this is the governnent and their red tape process to get even some of the simplest things accomplished.

Link to comment

Why not just let the reviewers "officially" use trusted volunteer helpers? Anytime they see a cache near a school or a bridge or whatever might be a guideline violation, they could ask the closest volunteer to check it out for them. Caches placed in questionable places would take much longer to approve so that would also discourage people from placing caches in borderline locations.

This site lists cache descriptions so that we finders can go seek them. They don't place them, they don't endorce the location of any cache. They check the cache against a few listing guidelines and if they meet the guidelines they list the cache.

The cache owner is the one responsible for the cache, it's location, and dealing with any issues that come up. If this site ever did start endorsing a cache or it's location this site would start becoming responsible for the caches it lists and that would make geocaching as we know it non-viable.

So the reviewer basically provides legal "due diligence" on behalf of GC.com and the cache placer is ultimately responsible for anything he does. So in some cases reviewers have overlooked caches placed near highway bridges on their maps. We all know that reviewers are human; so I'm not bagging on them. However, if the reviewer or agent did a detailed analysis like actually seeing the large bridge in person and then approving the cache, then it could be held against GC.com. If this is correct, I think I get it now. This also explains why the OPs idea would never fly....
Link to comment

What about their "real" lives?

TRUE cachers don't have "real" lives. :mad:

 

<snip>

Premises:

1. There are some caches placed in a questionable manner or in questionable places which are not easy to determine from written information. Further, caches placed by beginners are often lacking in some aspect which could be easily improved, even though they might not technically violate any guidelines.

 

2. There are caches placed which, while technically OK, are destined to be regarded by many as "lame".

<snip>

I would like to limit debate on the premises if possible. If you disagree with the premises, the expected response would simply be "no changes to the current system would be justified".

 

Assuming these premises are valid then, would you favour modification of current reviewing practices along the lines I shall suggest or do you have other ideas?

 

Suggestions:

<snip>

3. "Veteran cachers" (definition and designation authority open to debate) could be designated to have automatic approval authority on their own submissions

<snip>

 

Answer to the Premises:

1. That's a blanket statement that doesn't apply to all newbies. I have seen some great cache hides by beginners.

 

2. Not all perceptions are created equal. Neither can "Lame" be applied equally to all caches by all hiders.

 

3. Not all veterans adhere to the guidelines. My perception is the ones that don't, believe they know better than the reviewer and should be the exception to the rule.

 

To answer "no changes to the current system would be justified" doesn't allow anybody to support their debate against the premise. That's a no go by me.

 

Suggestion 1 puts too much work in a simple process and it isn't equally applied as noted in other caching communities based on conversations I've had with other folks involved in those communities.

 

That makes Suggestion 2 a no go when put on the same basis as Suggestion 1.

 

Suggestion 3 still runs into observations on Premise 1. Some veterans believe the guidelines shouldn't have to apply to them all of the time.

 

I believe that answers to your reasonings why this wouldn't work as well as you might think. What typically looks good on paper normally does not work well in practice if you have to put too much human interference in place. Analagous to this is the governnent and their red tape process to get even some of the simplest things accomplished.

 

Your objections to the premises were already covered in th OP.

1. See Bold above- it is NOT a "blanket" statement. The word "some" means that there are a few or perhaps several or many. The word "often" means many times but not always.

 

If it was a "Blanket" statement, it would have said, "ALL" and "ALWAYS"

 

2. "Regarded by many" would indicate that there are differing perceptions as you correctly point out.

 

Also, let me explain further why I asked to LIMIT (not PROHIBIT) debate on the premises, since this seems to be a "hot button" with so many posters:

 

Please note the word "LIMIT". That does not mean NO DEBATE, just that I would PREFER to debate the merits of the IDEAS, not the premises, since if the premises are invalid then there is no NEED for the IDEAS presented. I GET that. That's WHY I asked to limit debate on the premises. I simply felt that going off on the tangent of debating the stipulated premises would be irrelevant to the topic. What I've asked is simply, "if we assume these premises, would these suggestions be favoured?"

 

It seems to be the concensus of the forum posters so far that ther is no need for the IDEAS. I am OK with that. But some seem to think they are conceptually valid and some have expounded on them with interesting suggestions. So this is not a dead horse- yet.

 

3. Being designated a "veteran cacher" is not an entitlement. As I stated above, it would be open to definition. Those who CAN be trusted to approve their own COULD be. Those who cannot, SHOULD NOT be. TPTB could make that decision based on whatever criteria they chose.

 

"Too much work" is certainly a valid argument. It was one of my original thoughts on the subject, too. In many areas, I'm sure it WOULD be too much. But then again, if it was implemented as I stated- where ONLY those caches where the reviewer had questions, it would really not amount to that much. The only difference with my proposal and what some are agreeing with is the number of peer reviewers assigned to check out the cache.

 

You are probably right that it would be too much work to routinely apply it to newbies as I suggested.

 

Why not just let the reviewers "officially" use trusted volunteer helpers? <snip>

<snip>

However, if the reviewer or agent did a detailed analysis like actually seeing the large bridge in person and then approving the cache, then it could be held against GC.com. If this is correct, I think I get it now. This also explains why the OPs idea would never fly....

I think they presently DO use volunteer helpers sometimes. I'm OK with that as far as my suggestion goes- perhaps the key word is "officially".

 

So if GC checks a cache out WELL, they become MORE liable? But if they just quickly glance at it and send it out they are LESS liable? I don't see how THAT could work. If that's the case they would be much better off not to review at all- then they would have NO liability according to this reasoning. In the famous words of Bart Simpson "I didn't do it"- there's safety in ignorance- or is that what they call "Plausible Deniability" (link is a little obscure on the point- you need to get to the next level in the puzzle). :(

Link to comment
So if GC checks a cache out WELL, they become MORE liable? But if they just quickly glance at it and send it out they are LESS liable? I don't see how THAT could work. If that's the case they would be much better off not to review at all- then they would have NO liability according to this reasoning. In the famous words of Bart Simpson "I didn't do it"- there's safety in ignorance- or is that what they call "Plausible Deniability" (link is a little obscure on the point- you need to get to the next level in the puzzle). :mad:
They don't have the bandwidth to check out every cache "well." The "volunteer" reviewers are bombarded with hundreds of caches. They simply have to make a reasonable effort at ensuring that the guidelines have been followed, which they do. Also keep in mind that every cacher visiting a cache can report the cache if something slips through. I don't think this happens as much as it should.... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

They don't have the bandwidth to check out every cache "well." The "volunteer" reviewers are bombarded with hundreds of caches. They simply have to make a reasonable effort at ensuring that the guidelines have been followed, which they do. Also keep in mind that every cacher visiting a cache can report the cache if something slips through. I don't think this happens as much as it should....

That would be because people who DO report cache problems get called names and lambasted by the "community". This is one of the reasons I think the sttatus quo is not woking as well as many seem to think it is and there is room for improvement in the process.

Link to comment

In the occasional case where I am having trouble deciding whether to grant an exception to a listing guideline, I ask the cache owner to submit photos. They live close to their cache, I probably don't. They don't want a volunteer helper "checking out" their geocache (FTF before publication), and I don't have the time to set that up. I want that cache out of my queue, because there are dozens of others waiting. This system has worked quite well for me.

 

There's been several posts where it's been asserted that reviewers *do* sometimes check out cache locations prior to publication. In 3.5 years of reviewing, and many thousands of caches reviewed, I have never done this. Nor have I ever employed a secret helper prior to publication (although I've done so *after* publication, and I have assisted in travel bug rescue missions from caches that were never published). I think most reviewers would report the same. I am aware of a few situations where a land manager, as part of its permit system, has insisted that the volunteer reviewer verify the location in person. Those are rare exceptions.

 

Confucius Cat, sorry to tell you this, but Renegade Knight and TrailGators have a pretty accurate understanding of the philosophy behind the current review process. As I stated earlier in the thread, you will likely be disappointed by the direction which I expect that process to take in the future. Cache listings and guideline checks should be easier than they are now, not harder. And reviewers do NOT want to be judges or protectors of quality. We went through that with virtuals and we did not like it. So, I would focus on your recent observation, and try to improve the community's involvement in the responsible reporting of geocaches that have serious issues. Can you think of a better way than the current system (leave a needs maintenance or needs archived log on the cache page, risk being flamed)?

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment
Please note the word "LIMIT". That does not mean NO DEBATE, just that I would PREFER to debate the merits of the IDEAS, not the premises, since if the premises are invalid then there is no NEED for the IDEAS presented. I GET that. That's WHY I asked to limit debate on the premises. I simply felt that going off on the tangent of debating the stipulated premises would be irrelevant to the topic. What I've asked is simply, "if we assume these premises, would these suggestions be favoured?"

 

In order to have a proper debate, the merits of the premises must not be excluded. Otherwise, all you're looking for is a yes or no without the cause to the why. I would ask why assume the premises are correct? You should gain validation on the premises first before putting forth the argument to assume it.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

Confucius Cat, sorry to tell you this, but Renegade Knight and TrailGators have a pretty accurate understanding of the philosophy behind the current review process. As I stated earlier in the thread, you will likely be disappointed by the direction which I expect that process to take in the future. Cache listings and guideline checks should be easier than they are now, not harder. And reviewers do NOT want to be judges or protectors of quality. We went through that with virtuals and we did not like it. So, I would focus on your recent observation, and try to improve the community's involvement in the responsible reporting of geocaches that have serious issues. Can you think of a better way than the current system (leave a needs maintenance or needs archived log on the cache page, risk being flamed)?

Well, it is interesting that you assume I will not like something without telling me what it is. I think you will find, if I am informed as to the reasoning behind something, as long as the "logic" is at least reasonably "logical", that I accept it and try my best to abide by it - and like it. :mad:

 

As to a better way of cache problem reporting, i have stated many times in the forums that the SBA note should be anonymous to the public, but the poster identified to the reviewer. Assuming then that the reviewer and the poster can keep a confidence, the public sees that someone perceives a problem (so that they can act accordingly) and the owner cannot retaliate against the poster.

 

After the reviewer checks out the alleged irregularity, he/she can delete the note (and the cache owner CANNOT) if it is determined to be unfounded. If it is a complaint of merit, the reviewer can take whatever action is appropriate.

 

Speaking from MY experience, so far I believe I have been "flamed" for nearly 100% of notes I have posted regarding perceived cache problems. And my notes have 100% been civil and matter-of-fact. Heck, one cache owner B****d me out because i posted a (at that time, routine) DNF where I said I gave up because I did not feel comfortable searching the area at night. Admittedly it is a very small sample, I have posted perhaps a dozen or so such notes in 3+ years of caching. (actually, I think there WAS one where the owner re-routed traffic away from the no-trespass signs and did NOT attack. so maybe I should say 98.7%)

Link to comment

In order to have a proper debate, the merits of the premises must not be excluded. Otherwise, all you're looking for is a yes or no without the cause to the why. I would ask why assume the premises are correct? You should gain validation on the premises first before putting forth the argument to assume it.

Not really.

Every debate has many assumed premises.

 

As a ferinstance, if we cannot assume premises, it wouldn't be a fair debate unless we also discuss whether GC has the authority to make guidelines, since the issue of enforcement or verification of guidelines presupposes someone has the authority to do so. If GC does not have the authority to enforce its guidelines (by refusing listings), the issue of verification is moot.

 

The reason I asked to limit debate on the stipulated premises was simply to focus the discussion on the changes proposed.

 

This thread opens up a whole Pandora's box full of debatable issues. I didn't want it to degenerate into "micros suck", "beginners shouldn't hide caches, "there's no such thing as lame caches only lame cachers", "GC is unfair" and "we gotta have written p*********n".

 

I believe if the premises were debated freely the premises debate would have totally dominated the discussion with little consideration of the ideas presented. The thread would have been so far gone (like most threads) in the first few posts that the issues I intended to focus upon would have been a distant memory.

 

It looks like the debate over non-debate has done that anyway. Such are fora I guess. :P

Link to comment

In order to have a proper debate, the merits of the premises must not be excluded. Otherwise, all you're looking for is a yes or no without the cause to the why. I would ask why assume the premises are correct? You should gain validation on the premises first before putting forth the argument to assume it.

Not really.

Every debate has many assumed premises.

 

As a ferinstance, if we cannot assume premises, it wouldn't be a fair debate unless we also discuss whether GC has the authority to make guidelines, since the issue of enforcement or verification of guidelines presupposes someone has the authority to do so. If GC does not have the authority to enforce its guidelines (by refusing listings), the issue of verification is moot.

 

The reason I asked to limit debate on the stipulated premises was simply to focus the discussion on the changes proposed.

 

This thread opens up a whole Pandora's box full of debatable issues. I didn't want it to degenerate into "micros suck", "beginners shouldn't hide caches, "there's no such thing as lame caches only lame cachers", "GC is unfair" and "we gotta have written p*********n".

 

I believe if the premises were debated freely the premises debate would have totally dominated the discussion with little consideration of the ideas presented. The thread would have been so far gone (like most threads) in the first few posts that the issues I intended to focus upon would have been a distant memory.

 

It looks like the debate over non-debate has done that anyway. Such are fora I guess. :P

You attempted to stack the debate over the merits of a series of solutions in a single direction with a passive aggressive argument to require the person to contribute towards the conversation assuming the premises were a valid perception and to contribute nothing else if they didn't agree. That's called believing your own press without validation.

 

To declare you were trying to prevent a degeneration of the conversation into what sucks and doesn't is just lame. That happens in most cases when the OP rants about such things. Valid openings generate valid discussions.

 

You would have had a better debate to allow the merits of the premises to be hammered first instead of limiting it. Then real solutions could have been hammered out without adding additional work on volunteers. My premise in situations such as your OP has always been local peer pressure by the community will do more to educate than adding more stipulations via Groundspeak on how and when you can do certain activities related to this sport/hobby. Personally, if I was placed under the stipulations you suggested, I wouldn't enjoy the sport the way I do today and probably wouldn't have stayed in it this long.

 

I took a quick look at your profile to see what was feeding this. If you're having a lot of problems with cachers not liking your comments on the logs, maybe you should do a little introspection and see if your approach is lacking a little panache. The problems you seem to be facing be they generated by the hider or you, is still too small to add more limitations on how the game should be played.

Link to comment

I don't think they troll these boards, so hopefully this won't be misconstrued as a**-kissing, but I have been incredibly happy with the three reviewers in SoCal. They're wonderful.

 

However, I hear that some cachers up in NoCal don't have it as good.

 

Perhaps the "system/process" is just fine, and the poor reviewers simply need to be dealt with on a case by case basis?

 

My two cents,

MrW.

Link to comment

I don't think they troll these boards, so hopefully this won't be misconstrued as a**-kissing, but I have been incredibly happy with the three reviewers in SoCal. They're wonderful.

 

However, I hear that some cachers up in NoCal don't have it as good.

 

Perhaps the "system/process" is just fine, and the poor reviewers simply need to be dealt with on a case by case basis?

 

My two cents,

MrW.

 

You guys have three? We have two that I know of. That can make a difference, especially in terms of workload.

 

I'm doing my part by being very picky about where I hide my cache.

Link to comment

...but I have been incredibly happy with the three reviewers in SoCal. They're wonderful.

 

However, I hear that some cachers up in NoCal don't have it as good.

 

Not quite sure what this means. I hope it doesn't mean what I want it not to mean. NC reviewers have been GREAT!

Link to comment

Just because a cacher has lots of finds it does not mean he/she does not hide lame caches. I have seen some very lame cache hides by cachers with thousands of finds. :laughing: So there

 

I have not had any problems with any reviewers in N. Cal.

 

I do know two of the three reviewers in N. Cal. from what I have been told, lots of the problems they have are with cachers that do not read the guidelines, or cachers that do not think the guidelines should apply to them.

 

there is no real reason to change the way caches are reviewed

Link to comment

In order to have a proper debate, the merits of the premises must not be excluded. Otherwise, all you're looking for is a yes or no without the cause to the why. I would ask why assume the premises are correct? You should gain validation on the premises first before putting forth the argument to assume it.

Not really.

Every debate has many assumed premises.

 

As a ferinstance, if we cannot assume premises, it wouldn't be a fair debate unless we also discuss whether GC has the authority to make guidelines, since the issue of enforcement or verification of guidelines presupposes someone has the authority to do so. If GC does not have the authority to enforce its guidelines (by refusing listings), the issue of verification is moot.

 

The reason I asked to limit debate on the stipulated premises was simply to focus the discussion on the changes proposed.

 

This thread opens up a whole Pandora's box full of debatable issues. I didn't want it to degenerate into "micros suck", "beginners shouldn't hide caches, "there's no such thing as lame caches only lame cachers", "GC is unfair" and "we gotta have written p*********n".

 

I believe if the premises were debated freely the premises debate would have totally dominated the discussion with little consideration of the ideas presented. The thread would have been so far gone (like most threads) in the first few posts that the issues I intended to focus upon would have been a distant memory.

 

It looks like the debate over non-debate has done that anyway. Such are fora I guess. :laughing:

You attempted to stack the debate over the merits of a series of solutions in a single direction with a passive aggressive argument to require the person to contribute towards the conversation assuming the premises were a valid perception and to contribute nothing else if they didn't agree. That's called believing your own press without validation.

 

To declare you were trying to prevent a degeneration of the conversation into what sucks and doesn't is just lame. That happens in most cases when the OP rants about such things. Valid openings generate valid discussions.

 

You would have had a better debate to allow the merits of the premises to be hammered first instead of limiting it. Then real solutions could have been hammered out without adding additional work on volunteers. My premise in situations such as your OP has always been local peer pressure by the community will do more to educate than adding more stipulations via Groundspeak on how and when you can do certain activities related to this sport/hobby. Personally, if I was placed under the stipulations you suggested, I wouldn't enjoy the sport the way I do today and probably wouldn't have stayed in it this long.

 

I took a quick look at your profile to see what was feeding this. If you're having a lot of problems with cachers not liking your comments on the logs, maybe you should do a little introspection and see if your approach is lacking a little panache. The problems you seem to be facing be they generated by the hider or you, is still too small to add more limitations on how the game should be played.

Sorry. Total miss. :laughing:

 

I guess the possibility that I just might have posted the topic HONESTLY is too much, eh?

Edited by Confucius' Cat
Link to comment

You know, too often I only chime in on things where I disagree with TPTB or others <cough>Waymarking</cough>.

 

Anyway, in my opinion the review process is working really well these days. It has gotten smoother and smoother as the reviewers have gained experience and the guidelines have been tweaked. The improvement is evident in the decrease in threads started by cachers who are upset because their hides have been denied.

 

Are there guidelines I don't like? Yep. Is the review process flawless? Nope. But I am certainly content to live with it like it is.

Link to comment

I could write a book on crappy, lame, and unsafe placements. But they happen with "veteran" cachers to.

I know one thing that could help. Your idea of "peer reviewers" but have them review existing caches. If they see something not up to par they can check it out and archive it if need be. See the cache linked below.

 

You would think that a cacher with over 100 hides would come up with something original to say, or at least give a hint. Instead the entire cache page is a cut and paste that reads

 

"A (insert city name) City Park Cache for your enjoyment.

BYOP (Bring Your Own Pen/Pencil)

 

And of course there is no hint on any of them, and the coords are often quite a way off.

 

Here is a prime example of their quality caches:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b7-5f1343055d20 .

 

My nose will scared for life because of veteran cachers lack of common sense. As it turns out he cache was hidden in the bar that feel on my nose. Not cool at all...

 

I will stop right there and just say

 

"no changes"

Edited by caverspencer
Link to comment

Soon, we will have roving bands of cache police. ;)

We do have roving cache police. Thankfully they have not yet formed bands. :laughing:

I'm not the cache police, but I'm in a band :laughing:

I thought The Cache Police broke up after the Syncachnicity tour.

Hey! I found a message in a BAAA TULLLL! :laughing:

Just sign the log and put it back where you found it. :(

Link to comment
I could write a book on crappy, lame, and unsafe placements. But they happen with "veteran" cachers to. I know one thing that could help. Your idea of "peer reviewers" but have them review existing caches. If they see something not up to par they can check it out and archive it if need be. See the cache linked below.
I took a look at the cache page. It's a micro hidden at a baseball field. It doesn't appear to be extraordinarily dangerous. As in all of life, we need to show proper care in all situations.
You would think that a cacher with over 100 hides would come up with something original to say, or at least give a hint. Instead the entire cache page is a cut and paste that reads

 

"A (insert city name) City Park Cache for your enjoyment.

BYOP (Bring Your Own Pen/Pencil)

 

And of course there is no hint on any of them, and the coords are often quite a way off.

 

Here is a prime example of their quality caches:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b7-5f1343055d20.

There is nothing wrong with a cache page that doesn't have a ton of verbiage or give a hint. Frankly, some cache pages have so much historical babblage included that it is tedious. No one mentioned bad coords in the logs of the referenced pages. If you do find a cache with bad coords, you can submit your own when you log it.

 

Personally, I felt that your logs on this cache page were out of line.

Would it really kill you to give a hint once in a while? Especially in a location such as this!
My nose will scared for life because of veteran cachers lack of common sense. As it turns out he cache was hidden in the bar that feel on my nose. Not cool at all...

 

I will stop right there and just say

 

"no changes"

I'm sorry your nose got scared. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I could write a book on crappy, lame, and unsafe placements. But they happen with "veteran" cachers to. I know one thing that could help. Your idea of "peer reviewers" but have them review existing caches. If they see something not up to par they can check it out and archive it if need be. See the cache linked below.
I took a look at the cache page. It's a micro hidden at a baseball field. It doesn't appear to be extraordinarily dangerous. As in all of life, we need to show proper care in all situations.
You would think that a cacher with over 100 hides would come up with something original to say, or at least give a hint. Instead the entire cache page is a cut and paste that reads

 

"A (insert city name) City Park Cache for your enjoyment.

BYOP (Bring Your Own Pen/Pencil)

 

And of course there is no hint on any of them, and the coords are often quite a way off.

 

Here is a prime example of their quality caches:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b7-5f1343055d20.

There is nothing wrong with a cache page that doesn't have a ton of verbiage or give a hint. Frankly, some cache pages have so much historical babblage included that it is tedious. No one mentioned bad coords in the logs of the referenced pages. If you do find a cache with bad coords, you can submit your own when you log it.

Absolutely agreed, Sbell.

 

Quality is ALWAYS a subjective measure. I never had any intention that the "peer reviewers" would ever be involved in assesing quality issues of this type. This kind of knit picking is typical "cache police". We already have them and don't need to make them official.

 

Besides, if the issue was the "lameness" of the cache page, that certainly would not require a physical visit to the cache to determine or "correct".

 

In reference to "quality", the only thing the peer reviewers would do is tactfully make suggestions to newbies about improvements they might make- like "a lot of experienced cachers have found that Gladware® doesn't weather well and you will probably have less water getting into your cache if you use a more substantial container".

Link to comment

Am I the only one who is perplexed by the nature of a hot topic in which greater than 10% of the posts are made by the OP? :( Or is this more common than I think and I'm just noticing it for the first time today? :D This is one of two current front page discussion with this situation.

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment
Am I the only one who is perplexed by the nature of a hot topic in which greater than 10% of the posts are made by the OP?

I'm interested in the topic and I'm defending my position.

Honestly, I thought defending one's postiion was the essence of debate. It would then seem logical that the OP would have 50% of the posts, assuming all posts were unique and worthy of response.

I must admit I have no formal training in internet fora. Is that a rule of etiquette or something of which I am unaware?

Link to comment
Am I the only one who is perplexed by the nature of a hot topic in which greater than 10% of the posts are made by the OP?

I'm interested in the topic and I'm defending my position.

Honestly, I thought defending one's postiion was the essence of debate. It would then seem logical that the OP would have 50% of the posts, assuming all posts were unique and worthy of response.

I must admit I have no formal training in internet fora. Is that a rule of etiquette or something of which I am unaware?

Apparently so. It would be Prime's 50/100 Rule.

Link to comment

I guess the possibility that I just might have posted the topic HONESTLY is too much, eh?

Puhleeeze. You had to fall to that? I didn't say your post was dishonest. I said in so many words, that if a 1000 people think you're goofy, you might want to consider what it is that makes that opinion common.

Link to comment

I guess the possibility that I just might have posted the topic HONESTLY is too much, eh?

Puhleeeze. You had to fall to that? I didn't say your post was dishonest. I said in so many words, that if a 1000 people think you're goofy, you might want to consider what it is that makes that opinion common.

You might want to consider why you seem to need to resort to personal attacks. Is it perhaps because you cannot articulate a logical argument relating to the topic?

 

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis. :D

Link to comment
Am I the only one who is perplexed by the nature of a hot topic in which greater than 10% of the posts are made by the OP?

I'm interested in the topic and I'm defending my position.

Honestly, I thought defending one's postiion was the essence of debate. It would then seem logical that the OP would have 50% of the posts, assuming all posts were unique and worthy of response.

I must admit I have no formal training in internet fora. Is that a rule of etiquette or something of which I am unaware?

Apparently so. It would be Prime's 50/100 Rule.

I'll buy that.

 

I didn't really think my ideas would be implemented, and I certainly didn't have any intention that they should be "imposed" upon the community, but IMO it has been interesting to discuss and I do appreciate the people who have posted cogent arguments.

 

I knew it was a losing battle after the first 2 or 3 posts when it became quite apparent that stipulating premises and then discussing an idea based upon the stipulations would not be accepted in a GC forum.

 

Am I wrong to think a premise cannot be stipulated? I thought that was SOP in debating.

 

This is a sample debate topic pulled from a debate website:

Science has shown itself capable both of killing and curing – on balance, for which does it have more potential?

 

It stipulates a premise, which is certainly debatable, yet the topic ASSUMES that the premise is true and debate on the premises is not called for. To simply say "the premise is invalid" is a "cop-out". It does nothing to further the discussion of the issue.

 

I guess my expectations of forum discussion capabilities is too high. It is a shame though that a topic cannot be discussed honestly without personal attacks and attributing negative ulterior motives to posters with no evidence therefor. <branch of the tree of angst>

 

Did I hijack my own thread? :D

 

This is a dead horse and has been for some time.

 

If the mods want to close it I'm Ok with that.

Link to comment

I guess the possibility that I just might have posted the topic HONESTLY is too much, eh?

Puhleeeze. You had to fall to that? I didn't say your post was dishonest. I said in so many words, that if a 1000 people think you're goofy, you might want to consider what it is that makes that opinion common.

You might want to consider why you seem to need to resort to personal attacks. Is it perhaps because you cannot articulate a logical argument relating to the topic?

 

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis. :D

It isn't a personal attack. It was an observation based on your own profile...

 

Don't expect to see my logs online very often. Logging online has caused me too many hassles and detracts from my enjoyment of the game. I will only log found on a cache if I am FTF or if I find something about the cache to be especially cool or it is some kind of milestone. I will log DNF only if I am reasonably sure the cache is missing. All online logs will usually be short- this does not mean I did not enjoy your cache.
Link to comment

I disagree with what I read of the OP prior to getting bored with it.

:D I say we need a peer review team of five people to check each thread for lameness before it can be started.

 

I want to be on the team of five so I can never be permitted to log an FTF because I'll always know where it is the moment it's posted. I also think it would be a lot of fun having to go dredge up the same cache twice just because the first time didn't really count. It would really be awesome to review the cache of another member of the team so they know who I am and we can duke it out and get filmed on COPS or the nightly news after I reject it.

 

Anyone else want to be on a peer review team? It's easy; just muggle the sucker and don't tell anyone :D , and don't even think of taking me seriously.

 

Oh, sorry. What was that again? No caches to the current change are justified, or something like that.

Link to comment

I didn't really think my ideas would be implemented, and I certainly didn't have any intention that they should be "imposed" upon the community, but IMO it has been interesting to discuss and I do appreciate the people who have posted cogent arguments.

 

I knew it was a losing battle after the first 2 or 3 posts when it became quite apparent that stipulating premises and then discussing an idea based upon the stipulations would not be accepted in a GC forum.

 

Am I wrong to think a premise cannot be stipulated? I thought that was SOP in debating.

 

I'm confused. You clearly said in your opening post:

 

I would like to limit debate on the premises if possible. If you disagree with the premises, the expected response would simply be "no changes to the current system would be justified".

The first few posts (and quite a lot of them thereafter) followed your topic rules and stated, "no changes to the current system would be justified".

 

Explain to me why you are know saying that we should not have said that?

 

Did I hijack my own thread? :D

 

Perhaps, it would seem so.

Link to comment

:blink: I say we need a peer review team of five people to check each thread for lameness before it can be started.

There's an easier way... just close down the forums.

 

I'm confused. You clearly said in your opening post:

 

I would like to limit debate on the premises if possible. If you disagree with the premises, the expected response would simply be "no changes to the current system would be justified".

The first few posts (and quite a lot of them thereafter) followed your topic rules and stated, "no changes to the current system would be justified".

Explain to me why you are know saying that we should not have said that?

I did not say posters should NOT say that. I said that would be what I expect. What I am on about is those who did not post "no changes needed", but rather chose to argue , uselessly, against the premises. If the premises are invalid then it is OBVIOUS that the idea is useless. Am I the only one that understands this? Sorry I am not able to explain myself clearly.

 

OK, so now I'll say this as clearly as I can. I WITHDRAW. This debate is useless.

 

NO CHANGES NEEDED!

Since we are all in total agreement now, will the mods please close the thread.

Edited by Confucius' Cat
Link to comment
I would like to limit debate on the premises if possible. If you disagree with the premises, the expected response would simply be "no changes to the current system would be justified".

 

Webster's definition of debate:

 

Function: noun

 

A contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

 

Function: verb

 

Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French debatre, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere

intransitive verb

1 obsolete : FIGHT, CONTEND

2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments

3 : to participate in a debate

transitive verb

1 a : to argue about <the subject was hotly debated> b : to engage (an opponent) in debate

2 : to turn over in one's mind <he's still debating what to do>

 

Both talk about two sides not just talk about one side.

 

Assuming these premises are valid then, would you favour modification of current reviewing practices along the lines I shall suggest or do you have other ideas?

 

Many have stated other ideas, they just don't fit your don't talk about stuff other than what I want you to say.

 

If everyone just stated "no changes needed", then you wouldn't have an inkling why.

 

 

 

My response is no changes needed.

 

 

Since you aren't interested in my reasons why I won't tell you unless you ask for my opinion which so far you don't seem to want from anyone but those that agree with your premise.

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