Jump to content

Lack of Transparency in Geocaching/Groundspeak


UBC Geograd
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

I have been reading the discourse surrounding the "deleted menu" issue, and the tensions that are running high regarding that matter. I considered contributing to that discussion, but I think what I am about to say warrants its own topic. Futhermore, I cannot speak for the "American" geocaching experience, since I have no interaction with the reviewers outside Canada. However, I am concerned about the lack of transparency in both the review process and the guidelines with regards to placing caches.

 

Let me preface my discussion by saying that our provincial reviewer, Cache Effect, is great. I have no problems with her (I think she's a woman); I have had several caches not approved, but all for valid reasons. I made the necessary changes and they were approved without problems. My concern is with the disconnect between reviewers/Groundspeak on one hand, and regular cachers on the other. I understand that run-of-the-mill cachers cannot be privy to all the information that Groundspeak holds, but I think there needs to be more availability and connection between cachers and reviewers. I think this would alleviate a lot of the disrespect some cachers have for reviewers, and would make cachers more respectful of Groundspeak as a whole.

 

There seems to be a "veil" of secrecy surrounding reviewers. At our last local geocachers meeting, we discussed how nobody seems to know who "Cache Effect" actually is, where she is located, or what her "other" geocaching name is. Perhaps if she came out to one of our meetings, certain people wouldn't be so upset by the review process. I know that the first cache I had "denied" I was very defensive and upset about. I responded quite harshly, as I had put alot of effort into creating it. I think, however, that if I knew the reviewer (or at least, had met them), I would have had more patience. They are people too!

 

Finally, I want to point out that reviewers are representatives of Groundspeak, and often the only contact we have with this organization. Groundspeak does hold a monopoly; they essentially control the parameters of our hobby. Geocaching is a dedication for many people, however. A traditional business setup where hobbyists have little say is simply not appropriate. I know very few people who have a fervent passion for WalMart (or any other business for that matter). The first step to more input is to allow a closer relationship with the reviewers. These people should not only have responsibility for publishing caches in a given geographic area, but act as the intermediary between us and the higher-ups.

 

On a slightly different note, I think alot of pain and confusion could be saved if Groundspeak had a "body of law" to resort to (made available to cachers). You know, spell out the rules in a more detailed manner. Especially in the greyer areas; what is/isn't considered commercial? The 'judges' at Groundspeak could go by precedent, and what is not permitted in California will be the same as in Nova Scotia. Just a thought.

Link to comment

 

There seems to be a "veil" of secrecy surrounding reviewers. At our last local geocachers meeting, we discussed how nobody seems to know who "Cache Effect" actually is, where she is located, or what her "other" geocaching name is. Perhaps if she came out to one of our meetings, certain people wouldn't be so upset by the review process. I know that the first cache I had "denied" I was very defensive and upset about. I responded quite harshly, as I had put alot of effort into creating it. I think, however, that if I knew the reviewer (or at least, had met them), I would have had more patience. They are people too!

Honestly, if I was a volunteer reviewer, going by the reaction in the other thread, I wouldn't want anyone to know who I was. In the NW, a lot of the reviewers use a separate account for playing than they use for reviewing.

 

Groundspeak does hold a monopoly; they essentially control the parameters of our hobby.

Bull-hookey. There are plenty of other listing services. They just all suck. You can always create an accout somewhere else and go play somewhere else if you want, therefore, it's not a monopoly.

 

A traditional business setup where hobbyists have little say is simply not appropriate. I know very few people who have a fervent passion for WalMart (or any other business for that matter). The first step to more input is to allow a closer relationship with the reviewers. These people should not only have responsibility for publishing caches in a given geographic area, but act as the intermediary between us and the higher-ups.

So, let me get this straight. You want to turn Groundspeak into a beurocracy? Give me a break. They are a business. A FOR-PROFIT business for that matter. What you are proposing would do nothing except make the review process longer and upset A LOT of people. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

On a slightly different note, I think alot of pain and confusion could be saved if Groundspeak had a "body of law" to resort to (made available to cachers). You know, spell out the rules in a more detailed manner.

It's called the "guidelines". If you had read them when you placed the caches you mentioned, they probably would have been approved.

 

Link to comment

 

There seems to be a "veil" of secrecy surrounding reviewers. At our last local geocachers meeting, we discussed how nobody seems to know who "Cache Effect" actually is, where she is located, or what her "other" geocaching name is. Perhaps if she came out to one of our meetings, certain people wouldn't be so upset by the review process. I know that the first cache I had "denied" I was very defensive and upset about. I responded quite harshly, as I had put alot of effort into creating it. I think, however, that if I knew the reviewer (or at least, had met them), I would have had more patience. They are people too!

Honestly, if I was a volunteer reviewer, going by the reaction in the other thread, I wouldn't want anyone to know who I was. In the NW, a lot of the reviewers use a separate account for playing than they use for reviewing.

 

Groundspeak does hold a monopoly; they essentially control the parameters of our hobby.

Bull-hookey. There are plenty of other listing services. They just all suck. You can always create an accout somewhere else and go play somewhere else if you want, therefore, it's not a monopoly.

 

A traditional business setup where hobbyists have little say is simply not appropriate. I know very few people who have a fervent passion for WalMart (or any other business for that matter). The first step to more input is to allow a closer relationship with the reviewers. These people should not only have responsibility for publishing caches in a given geographic area, but act as the intermediary between us and the higher-ups.

So, let me get this straight. You want to turn Groundspeak into a beurocracy? Give me a break. They are a business. A FOR-PROFIT business for that matter. What you are proposing would do nothing except make the review process longer and upset A LOT of people. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

On a slightly different note, I think alot of pain and confusion could be saved if Groundspeak had a "body of law" to resort to (made available to cachers). You know, spell out the rules in a more detailed manner.

It's called the "guidelines". If you had read them when you placed the caches you mentioned, they probably would have been approved.

 

 

Wow, no need to get angry defensive! Let's keep the arguments in thread civil and logical.

 

Firstly, my non-approved caches were not approved because of hidden waypoints for mystery caches that I didn't know existed nearby. I am familiar with the guidelines, and plant my caches accordingly. One was not approved because a page that I had a link to (to reference a famous poem), had a Google advertisement at the bottom of the poem page.

 

Secondly, Groundspeak does need to run a business. I do not propose more bureaucracy, just more input. And Groundspeak, does indeed have a monopoly, as all the other listing services are non-players. Going by anti-trust laws, this is considered monopolistic. Fortunately, this really isn't a big deal in the scheme of things. I suggest that things are, indeed, "broke" and do require some tinkering.

 

Finally, Geocaching is just a hobby. It's not like people are going to physically harm the reviewers, their property or something stupid like that . We just want to get to know them as fellow cachers, and not have them hide behind some facade of anonymity.

 

Thanks for your input, Readyornot. However, I must respectfully disagree with you.

 

-UBC

Link to comment

It's not like people are going to physically harm the reviewers, their property or something stupid like that .

 

Actually...it is a very real possibility. Some people get VERY serious. There have been cases where threats have been made against people. There ARE angry banned ex-members.

 

Time to remove the rose coloured glasses. Not everyone is nice.

Link to comment

UBC Geograd - I agree with a lot of what you said. I never did understand the need for Reviewers to "hide" their identity. One would think that they were also Geocachers, and as such would be more communicative with their fellow cachers.

 

It seems to me that it is left to the discretion of the volunteer as to whether they want to paint a big target on their backs. I don't think it's a policy of Groundspeak that they hide their identities. I would think it would take away from the fun if they had to use the same account. Can you imagine trying to get a FTF with your reviewer account :ph34r:

Link to comment

I am not sure how much more Transparency is wanted, I cannot speak on behalf of Groundspeak, but I can say I respect any reviewer that would prefer to have no connection between their reviewing identity and their caching identity. During the first half of my time as a volunteer, my identity was known to very few, in the past 2 years, I have become widely known to a number of cachers in and outside my review territory. While it is not something I wish to have announced here in the forums, I will no longer deny it when asked in person. Of this, I do see benefits drawbacks to both of the fence. Saying that, there is no reason to know who a reviewer is beyond that they were asked to volunteer and have accepted to do so. Reviewers are cachers, there is no doubt about that, you most likely know who is the reviewer in your area if you have been a cacher for any length of time and can email them any time with questions. If not, you can email me if you are in the forums, I will do my best to answer your questions or direct you to the reviewer in your local area.

 

So what more is required to know about me besides my reviewer account having reviewer rights for Geocaching.com, if you have issues concerning a reviewer, you email reviewers @ geocaching.com . You don't need to know my real name, just my reviewer name which is better known anyways, regardless, if you would prefer you can call me Shawn. My player account can be found on its own, I won't post it here, if you find our coin we put out 2 years ago, its on the reverse. My stats, not relevant, we have hidden a few, found a few more, at the very least I have found/attended 5 caches/events. I was asked to volunteer my time to review caches, I have done so, while the majority of cachers out there are great people and I have no problem being known for my dual identity. As pointed out by Red90, there has been some friction so when I started reviewing, I did so with an unknown account, I still prefer to have 2 accounts for player and reviewer, keeps things much easier. Any more transparency on my behalf needed?

Link to comment

I think all of these threads would stop if one thing happened.

 

Someone from Groundspeak stepped up and said:

 

"My name is X and I work for and speak for Groundspeak. We have decided to be more stringent enforcing rules around commercialism as it relates to cache names and descriptions. There will the odd discrepancy in the enforcement and we will deal with those on a case by case basis. Our intention is to treat all players fairly and equitably.

 

Please understand that cache approvers are volunteers and acting as directed by Groundspeak. They are not authorized to make policy. Nor are they authorized to speak on behalf of Groundspeak beyond approving caches."

 

 

I am appalled at how Groundspeak has let the approvers to take a ton of abuse (some from me) here without stepping in and supporting their volunteers. I am a volunteer with a K9 Search and Rescue group and I know for a fact my team and the police forces we serve would immediately step in and take responsibility for the volunteers doing what they are told to do.

 

Groundspeak doesn't seem to recognize that the players are customers. And as we all know: The customer comes first in everything we do at Compass!

 

My only regret is that there isn't a competitive website where we could take our business and still enjoy the same volume of caches available. But of course, Groundspeak have made that impossible. Reminds me of buying a PC a few years ago and having no choice for the O/S on it.

 

That is my final two cents on this topic.

Link to comment

Right on the money Tequila!

 

Our Michigan reveiwers are in almost the same boat as your Canadian reviewers and I feel for them.

 

Unfortunately GroundSpeaks transparency in the past has been the consistancy of mud. I don't think it's going to change anytime soon.

 

I agree that knowing who your reviewer is helps other cachers to treat them better. I also think that it should be their option to not reveal their identity.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

Link to comment
Any more transparency on my behalf needed

 

I certainly don't need any more transparency. Cachers in the Maritimes certainly know who you are.

 

What I do need to know is whose side are you on? Yes, yes, I know you have to follow the guidelines.

The "commercialism" thing just keeps getting bigger and bigger. You as a Reviewer must deal with it, and surely you can see the inconsistencies that are happening. So tell us, what as a Reviewer have you done about it? Certainly GC.com will listen to your concerns, even if they don't appear to be listening to the average joe cacher. Only when the "double standard" is fixed will things be smoothed out. Is it not time for some better "guidelines"? Many will say that the current guidelines are just fine, but they are NOT.

Link to comment

UBC Geograd - I agree with a lot of what you said. I never did understand the need for Reviewers to "hide" their identity. ...

 

A case can be built both ways. The case for transparency has already been made and it's a good case.

 

The counterpoint though is that while most of us are reasonable and will argue about our cache if we disagree some few make it personal and make threats. I'm not talking "You made me mad and I'm going to hold my breath and pout until you give me my way" but the kind that can make you look over your shoulder at church.

 

That's why reviewers have the option of a reviewer identity or using their own.

 

That doesn't mean the entire process can be much more transparent so everyone can see what's going on and everyone knows what to expect and how the system works.

Link to comment

And I can respect reviewers preferring to not be known to the general public. Imagine all of their fun if each event was "hey, what's up with guideline A, why did you deny joe's cache listing, tell me again what guideline B is all about, why didn't you let us link to a menu for this event", etc., etc., etc.

 

Sometimes, I bet they'd just like to be a local cacher and not the focal point of conversation.

Link to comment

At one time I was receiving real death threats from a cacher and they knew who I was and where I lived. I was concerned for my wife if this person showed up at the house and I was not there. Don't ask for any more details I will not say anymore on that subject. It would be great of everyone was sane but it does not work that way. Any reviewer that wants to, can be hidden. Groundspeak does not encourage it or discourage it. It is up to the reviewer.

 

There are times when it would be nice to not spend an entire event answering questions about the reviewing process. I solved it with an agreement with the cachers in the area that if I was wearing the reviewer name tag at an event I was there as the reviewer and would discuss reviewer issues and if I was wearing them cacher name tag I would not. It worked pretty well for most people but there was always the few people that just HAD to bug me. It is a volunteer job and there are times we, as reviewers just want to be a cacher.

Link to comment

A question I have for reviewers. Is there a point at which you would quit being an approver based solely on policy made by Groundspeak? I am not talking about getting too much grief from cachers over the issue, but the simply, “I don’t agree with Groundspeak and I quit.”

Edited by Keith Watson
Link to comment

At one time I was receiving real death threats from a cacher and they knew who I was and where I lived. I was concerned for my wife if this person showed up at the house and I was not there. Don't ask for any more details I will not say anymore on that subject. It would be great of everyone was sane but it does not work that way. Any reviewer that wants to, can be hidden. Groundspeak does not encourage it or discourage it. It is up to the reviewer.

 

There are times when it would be nice to not spend an entire event answering questions about the reviewing process. I solved it with an agreement with the cachers in the area that if I was wearing the reviewer name tag at an event I was there as the reviewer and would discuss reviewer issues and if I was wearing them cacher name tag I would not. It worked pretty well for most people but there was always the few people that just HAD to bug me. It is a volunteer job and there are times we, as reviewers just want to be a cacher.

 

I would be curious to know what, if any, support you received from Groundspeak during the death threat incident.

Link to comment

At one time I was receiving real death threats from a cacher and they knew who I was and where I lived. I was concerned for my wife if this person showed up at the house and I was not there. Don't ask for any more details I will not say anymore on that subject. It would be great of everyone was sane but it does not work that way. Any reviewer that wants to, can be hidden. Groundspeak does not encourage it or discourage it. It is up to the reviewer.

 

There are times when it would be nice to not spend an entire event answering questions about the reviewing process. I solved it with an agreement with the cachers in the area that if I was wearing the reviewer name tag at an event I was there as the reviewer and would discuss reviewer issues and if I was wearing them cacher name tag I would not. It worked pretty well for most people but there was always the few people that just HAD to bug me. It is a volunteer job and there are times we, as reviewers just want to be a cacher.

 

I would be curious to know what, if any, support you received from Groundspeak during the death threat incident.

 

You keep trying to fuel an imaginary fire here. If the volunteers didn't want to do what they were doing, they wouldn't do it. There is absolutely no reason they would even volunteer unless it was something they WANTED to do. They aren't being paid, so what other reason would they be volunteering? You're trying to play Groundspeak against its volunteers.

 

You're hoping for a volunteer to come forward, sobbing about how horrible Groundspeak is, so you can say, "See! Groundspeak is evil!"....

 

I don't think they are going to bite. But by all means, keep fishing.

Link to comment

At one time I was receiving real death threats from a cacher and they knew who I was and where I lived. I was concerned for my wife if this person showed up at the house and I was not there. Don't ask for any more details I will not say anymore on that subject. It would be great of everyone was sane but it does not work that way. Any reviewer that wants to, can be hidden. Groundspeak does not encourage it or discourage it. It is up to the reviewer.

 

There are times when it would be nice to not spend an entire event answering questions about the reviewing process. I solved it with an agreement with the cachers in the area that if I was wearing the reviewer name tag at an event I was there as the reviewer and would discuss reviewer issues and if I was wearing them cacher name tag I would not. It worked pretty well for most people but there was always the few people that just HAD to bug me. It is a volunteer job and there are times we, as reviewers just want to be a cacher.

 

I would be curious to know what, if any, support you received from Groundspeak during the death threat incident.

 

You keep trying to fuel an imaginary fire here. If the volunteers didn't want to do what they were doing, they wouldn't do it. There is absolutely no reason they would even volunteer unless it was something they WANTED to do. They aren't being paid, so what other reason would they be volunteering? You're trying to play Groundspeak against its volunteers.

 

You're hoping for a volunteer to come forward, sobbing about how horrible Groundspeak is, so you can say, "See! Groundspeak is evil!"....

 

I don't think they are going to bite. But by all means, keep fishing.

 

Like they say: The customer comes first in everything we do at Compass!

Link to comment

At one time I was receiving real death threats from a cacher and they knew who I was and where I lived. I was concerned for my wife if this person showed up at the house and I was not there. Don't ask for any more details I will not say anymore on that subject. It would be great of everyone was sane but it does not work that way. Any reviewer that wants to, can be hidden. Groundspeak does not encourage it or discourage it. It is up to the reviewer.

 

There are times when it would be nice to not spend an entire event answering questions about the reviewing process. I solved it with an agreement with the cachers in the area that if I was wearing the reviewer name tag at an event I was there as the reviewer and would discuss reviewer issues and if I was wearing them cacher name tag I would not. It worked pretty well for most people but there was always the few people that just HAD to bug me. It is a volunteer job and there are times we, as reviewers just want to be a cacher.

 

I would be curious to know what, if any, support you received from Groundspeak during the death threat incident.

 

You keep trying to fuel an imaginary fire here. If the volunteers didn't want to do what they were doing, they wouldn't do it. There is absolutely no reason they would even volunteer unless it was something they WANTED to do. They aren't being paid, so what other reason would they be volunteering? You're trying to play Groundspeak against its volunteers.

 

You're hoping for a volunteer to come forward, sobbing about how horrible Groundspeak is, so you can say, "See! Groundspeak is evil!"....

 

I don't think they are going to bite. But by all means, keep fishing.

 

I would like to know where approvers stand. Personally, If I was receiving threats that made me believe I, or someone I knew was in danger, I would quit. No brainer there. Not sure what backing Groundspeak could give other than moral support. I would hope they would at least do that much. Perfectly valid question.

 

Wanting to do something, and willing to do something at any cost are two different things. I am assuming there is a point at which any approver will walk away.

 

I hope this does not deter the approvers from continuing to keep active in this thread. It has started off looking like a way to get some answers from the approvers point of view.

Link to comment

 

I would like to know where approvers stand. Personally, If I was receiving threats that made me believe I, or someone I knew was in danger, I would quit. No brainer there. Not sure what backing Groundspeak could give other than moral support. I would hope they would at least do that much. Perfectly valid question.

 

Wanting to do something, and willing to do something at any cost are two different things. I am assuming there is a point at which any approver will walk away.

 

I hope this does not deter the approvers from continuing to keep active in this thread. It has started off looking like a way to get some answers from the approvers point of view.

 

Read post 12. I think cache tech has stated his point of view.

 

And, to reiterate, like I said in the 'menu link thread', contact Groundspeak, you may be pleasantly surprised at how easy they are to contact.

Link to comment

On the face of it, transparency seems like a great idea, and I agree that a certain degree of transparency is required. The question really is, how much.

 

I'm reminded of an old thread back when Parks Canada was in the process of forming its policy re. geocaching in the national parks. I was involved as a local (as far as I know, the *only* local) who stepped up to the plate and volunteered to act as a liason between Parks Canada and the geocaching community (this happend months before most people got involved... I got involved after a posting to our local geocaching forums).

 

There was a complaint at the time, repeated multiple times, about a 'lack of transparency' in the process. Well I came in, and decided, as I'd been involved for quite a while that I would post all the information I had about process, what had happend, what was happening, who I was, and how I got involved.

 

Anyways, that led to a 200+ post long discussion. During which, it was strongly implied that I was going to try and sell software to Parks Canada, and I should thus be denied from the process. TPTB stepped in, and were greeted with sarcasm, and basically told to mind their own business.

 

I can imagine that after 7 years or so of hanging around in the forums, that you get a bit fed up with certain groups of people who for all appearances just seem to want to create a stink (there is at least one person in these two threads I could point to who I would place in that category). This kind of attitude will tend to create *less* transparency, not more.

Link to comment
Reviewers are cachers, there is no doubt about that, you most likely know who is the reviewer in your area if you have been a cacher for any length of time ...

 

Are you saying that there is a chance that I/we have met our local/regional reviewer without knowing it, presumably introducing themselves by their caching name rather than their reviewer name? So, I may be submitting caches to somone I have actually met, without knowing it? Just another reason to be nice to every geocacher (in person and in forums), you could be talking to your reviewer without knowing it!

Edited by shearzone
Link to comment

At one time I was receiving real death threats from a cacher and they knew who I was and where I lived. I was concerned for my wife if this person showed up at the house and I was not there. Don't ask for any more details I will not say anymore on that subject. It would be great of everyone was sane but it does not work that way. Any reviewer that wants to, can be hidden. Groundspeak does not encourage it or discourage it. It is up to the reviewer.

 

There are times when it would be nice to not spend an entire event answering questions about the reviewing process. I solved it with an agreement with the cachers in the area that if I was wearing the reviewer name tag at an event I was there as the reviewer and would discuss reviewer issues and if I was wearing them cacher name tag I would not. It worked pretty well for most people but there was always the few people that just HAD to bug me. It is a volunteer job and there are times we, as reviewers just want to be a cacher.

 

I would be curious to know what, if any, support you received from Groundspeak during the death threat incident.

 

You keep trying to fuel an imaginary fire here. If the volunteers didn't want to do what they were doing, they wouldn't do it. There is absolutely no reason they would even volunteer unless it was something they WANTED to do. They aren't being paid, so what other reason would they be volunteering? You're trying to play Groundspeak against its volunteers.

 

You're hoping for a volunteer to come forward, sobbing about how horrible Groundspeak is, so you can say, "See! Groundspeak is evil!"....

 

I don't think they are going to bite. But by all means, keep fishing.

 

I would like to know where approvers stand. Personally, If I was receiving threats that made me believe I, or someone I knew was in danger, I would quit. No brainer there. Not sure what backing Groundspeak could give other than moral support. I would hope they would at least do that much. Perfectly valid question.

 

Wanting to do something, and willing to do something at any cost are two different things. I am assuming there is a point at which any approver will walk away.

 

I hope this does not deter the approvers from continuing to keep active in this thread. It has started off looking like a way to get some answers from the approvers point of view.

 

As a reviewer, I don't know where the breaking point will be, I have been threatened before both as a reviewer and moderator, I am still here. I have the support of Groundspeak and they have been there to listen to the concerns of the reviewers. I cannot say where the line, I have not been scared off yet and don't see anything that cachers/Groundspeak will do to make me quit at this time. Over the past 4 going on 5 years, there have been times I considered stepping back, especially after taking a brow beating during the review of a virtual cache or two ;) but I have enjoyed the many friends we have made from our geocaching activity and am proud I can give something back to my geocaching community.

 

Happy Geocaching!

 

edit:grammer

Edited by Cache-tech
Link to comment
Reviewers are cachers, there is no doubt about that, you most likely know who is the reviewer in your area if you have been a cacher for any length of time ...

 

Are you saying that there is a chance that I/we have met our local/regional reviewer without knowing it, presumably introducing themselves by their caching name rather than their reviewer name? So, I may be submitting caches to somone I have actually met, without knowing it? Just another reason to be nice to every geocacher (in person and in forums), you could be talking to your reviewer without knowing it!

We met many cachers as players and not reviewers before many of them knew we were reviewers, so you never know ;)

Link to comment

Over the past 4 going on 5 years, there have been times I considered stepping back, especially after taking a brow beating during the review of a virtual cache or two ;) but I have enjoyed the many friends we have made from geocaching activity and am proud I can give something back to my geocaching community.

 

Happy Geocaching!

 

I did get my virtual. ;)

Edited by Keith Watson
Link to comment

IMHO, the reviewers in my neck of the woods are doing a great job. I have been in contact with a few over both my concern, there concerns, and have both asked and answered general questions with out any issues.

I can say though, that about 24 or so months ago, I did have a few emails from Groundspeak over some images that we wanted to use. I had a few questions that I could not get a full answer for (size, colors used, etc.) so I just tossed the idea and we made a new site icon. I know that there can and will be diffrences in opinion in business. They are just looking out for there $$$$. Just be glad that what we have at this time will never change as "geocaching" is a free activity and Groundspeak is just the listing service that we choose to use either free or for a fee..... again your choice. It would be cool to see a good alternative listing service, but until myself or someone who wants to put the $$$$ into the servers and bandwidth this is what we got. So lets make the best of what we have, help the reviewers........ and most of all.... keep caching!!!!

Link to comment

I have had the opportunity to deal with both Cache-tech and Cache-drone regarding listings. Whenever a question about guidelines surfaced, either, or both, responded immediately, and gave full explanation of where the rule/guideline could be referenced. They both appear to be doing an amazing job of making the connection between where the rules they must obey are derived, and where my rules/guidelines are.

 

I must congratulate the Ontario reviewers on doing what appears to be a very time consuming volunteer job, if all cache listings crossing their desks are as amateurish as my first few were. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

A question I have for reviewers. Is there a point at which you would quit being an approver based solely on policy made by Groundspeak? I am not talking about getting too much grief from cachers over the issue, but the simply, “I don’t agree with Groundspeak and I quit.”

 

If I was a reviewer, I wouldn't answer that. It's nobody's business, and providing an answer could only be used against the person in some future message board trolling thread.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...