Guidelines or rules?

[+Haggis Hunter]

When Deceangie stated here that parts of the guidelines are in fact rules, I felt that if he was correct then the guidelines needed to be re-written to reflect this.

 

So I decided to ask the question on the main GC forum. According to Michael (Groundspeak Lacky) the guidelines are guidelines and some are more flexible than others. He gives a more detailed explanation which can be viewed on the thread I started here.

 

This was the answer I was looking for.

 

So that no one gets the wrong end of the stick. I do believe that the guidelines should be met when submitting a cache. But with there being 3 reviewers who may have different perceptions of the guidelines, I feel that within the UK all of the reviewers should try and treat them the same. Difficult I know they are only human after all (or are they?). This then would hopefully stop any animosity when one cache gets published but another that meets the same criteria does not and the setter is told to change it.

 

As I have already stated here I do feel that Deceangie is not as flexible as Lactodorum and Eckington and would just like some uniformity if that is possible?

 

Please please please, do not start this as a slanging match bringing up personal grievances of caches. The complaint procedure with Groundspeak is the way to do this.

[NickPick]

I've always understood that they're guidelines. Being guidelines means that they are more open to interpretation than hard and fast rules which should be very specific about waht can and can't be done. (As an example, take the minimum cache distance - if it's a rigid 0.1 miles, then a cache should not be published if it's 0.099999 miles away from an existing one, but a reviewer can interpret this as 'approximately 0.1 miles'). "Some are more flexible than others" could be re-phrased as "Some are more rigid than others".

 

I've also heard that the UK reviewers will discuss amongst themselves any guidelines they're not entirely sure about. I would suggest that if you feel that a reviewer has interpreted a guideline differently to how the others would, you could ask them to discuss it with the other 2 to decide on a more consistent approach.

[Lactodorum]

<snip>

As I have already stated here I do feel that Deceangie is not as flexible as Lactodorum and Eckington and would just like some uniformity if that is possible?

 

Please please please, do not start this as a slanging match bringing up personal grievances of caches. The complaint procedure with Groundspeak is the way to do this.

Dave, that is your opinion and as you have stated it in a polite and measured way I will try and respond in kind.

 

As the UK has 3 reviewers, and as we try and implement the Guidelines to the best of our ability you will inevitably get, on occasion, 3 different interpretations. If you could see the private Reviewers' forum which discusses interpretation issues from around the world, you would see almost as many views as there are reviewers.

 

Despite this inevitable variability the 3 UK reviewers strive to act as a team and regularly (usually several times a day) discuss anything we might consider "iffy" or "pushing the envelope" too far. I think I can probably count on the fingers of one hand how many times we have failed to reach a consensus in the past couple of years on a particularly tricky cache submission.

 

I believe we get the balance right (well I would say that wouldn't I? ) and I think that is borne out by the feedback we get. That's not to say we are complacent, and if something is pointed out then we will examine the details to see if we can improve.

 

The only way to ensure true consistency is to use a clear set of rules and some kind of automatic publishing program. That is not the way Geocaching works and at the end of the day we all have to live with its faults. At least it's only a silly game and not life or death!!

Edited February 21, 2008 by Lactodorum

[+keehotee]

It seems to me that the "guidelines" have worked pretty well so far..........

 

The trouble with rules (apart from the fact that they are only there to be broken) is their lack of flexibility - and that flexibility is something I've been grateful for on more than one occasion when setting caches (Thank you Ecky)

[+Haggis Hunter]

Peter thank you for your reply. I know that you all work closely to do your best for the community and that is appreciated. But I am afraid this still doesn't change my perception. I may be wrong but I have never seen yourself or Ecky saying that the any part of the guidelines are rules!

 

keehotee I don't think you may have realised it, but you have just made my point. Deceangie has openly said that parts of the guidelines are rules. Rules are unflexible. Michael from Groundspeak and erik (another moderator) have a different view on the thread which I have quoted above.

[Deceangi]

Since it's my comment which is being misinterpreted I'll explain my view point

 

Guidelines: Guidance given to some one who has to apply something, which allows flexibility.

 

Rules: Something which the person having to apply them must follow. dose not allow flexibility.

 

from the Guidelines

 

The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache

 

That is a fixed statement which anyone submitting a Traditional cache must follow, and Reviewers must apply. To me personally that is a Rule. I'd be interested in the opinion of anyone who can show me any flexibility in that statement and as such my statement

 

'Parts of the Guidelines are in fact Rules'

is in fact correct.

 

Which contradicts the answer given to HH

 

To answer the OP's question they are Guidelines. Some are more flexible than others

which as I have been informed indicates all the Guidelines are flexible

[Alan White]

While I do have some sympathy with HH's point of view - I too have noticed a change in reviewing over the last couple of years - I don't think there's a straightfoward answer to the question "are they guidelines or rules". Nor is there a solution to the fact that different people will interpret both guidelines and rules in different ways.

 

For example, I've been having an email discussion with a local cacher about whether his requirement for what I define as "special equipment" means that the cache should be D or T5. I believe it does, but the other cacher, equally validly, believes that - even if the required equipment is special - it does not.

 

In the same discussion, we debated whether the requirement he placed on a particular retrieval method constitutes an ALR (and therefore the cache should be a Mystery). I believe it does, he does not. Both propositions are equally valid, just different interpretations.

 

Which just proves that it's inevitable that two (or even three ) people, given the same set of words may interpret them differently. As has been mentioned, there is an appeals procedure though the little acquaintance I have with that indicates to me that Groundspeak will rarely overrule the reviewer.

 

As for the "some of the guidelines are rules" quote, it seems to me that this is self-evident. Commercial caches are not permitted, unless with Groundspeak's prior approval; traditional caches must be at the published coords; physical caches must have a logbook. All these are surely rules?

 

I'm much more concerned about another aspect which cropped up recently: that there are apparently rules/guidelines which the reviewers know about but which are not published. How Groundspeak expects cachers to comply with rules/guidelines which they don't know about is beyond me

[+maxkim]

Although I have had caches refused by all three over the years, for various reasons, I needed 6 virtual caches just in the week TPTB decided to outlaw them, and others where we disagreed on safety issues (Don't start me on the nanny state) , I must say on balance that each time it has happened they always discussed and came back with some form of compromise or work around. They do a fairly thankless, time consuming task and should be supported in the way they do it.

We join the game and accept the guideline or rules (Which game do you play that doesn't have any rules???) We may not agree with them all but thats the way it works.

[+Haggis Hunter]

The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache

 

That is a fixed statement which anyone submitting a Traditional cache must follow, and Reviewers must apply. To me personally that is a Rule. I'd be interested in the opinion of anyone who can show me any flexibility in that statement and as such my statement

Although I certainly shall not disagree with that, you know that is not why I have pursued this. We have had a private conversation on this subject* since you made the rules statement on the other thread. At no point have you stated the above and I feel that you have either brought this up in hindsight or are using it to try and back up your original claim?

 

*which isn't why this thread was started.

 

I'm much more concerned about another aspect which cropped up recently: that there are apparently rules/guidelines which the reviewers know about but which are not published. How Groundspeak expects cachers to comply with rules/guidelines which they don't know about is beyond me

I was told that Groundspeak have instructed reviewers that where the word 'should' is indicated in the guidelines it is to be used as the word 'must'. This is why have I started this. I have put this forward on the thread directed at Groundspeak, and as of yet, it appears to be untrue!

 

Either the person that told me that, is correct and Groundspeak won't clarify it or that person is quite simply wrong?

[Nette]

I personnel think what haggis hunter is saying is a load rubbish and who else has these opinion, deceangi does his best to keep up with what is going on, if you have just because he keeps on top of caches that are left ideal so that there are more caches to be found rather than leaving them disabled for over 4 months. And if anyone has a problem with this response come to me and if doing what your suppose to do is wrong then what is the point. And he is flexible more than people think Try remembering these are volunteers Nette

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

Guidelines or Rules - whichever they are they should be applied fairly and equally.

 

Nette mentions caches being archived after a set period.

 

One of mine was archived (over which I have no problem - I would probably have archived it anyway) yet, there are several other caches nearby that don't even have a first "warning" and one has been temporarily disabled for 18 months!

[+scottpa100]

...one has been temporarily disabled for 18 months!

 

I'd suggest that you mark this cache as 'Needs Archived'. The reviewers are volunteers and the time they do invest for us lot is valuable time. We should make their job easier by marking long standing temporarily disabled caches as 'Needs Archived' so that it goes into the reviewer's process queue.

 

I had a Multi near me that was sitting around for like 6 months needing TLC, despite me writing notes on the cache page, re-visiting site, and other previous visitors confirming that parts had gone. As these were all noted on the cache page. Eventually, I became part of the nasty 'cache police', marked it as 'Needs Archived' and Lacto got rid.

 

And that was done very promptly.

[nobby.nobbs]

From what I have seen I would say that the three of them do an extremely good job of being as consistent as possible considering that they are three individuals.

 

Be careful what you wish for as there are several "guidelines" that the american cachers have to obey that are ignored for us.

 

I think that it is rather unfair to criticise volunteers for doing their best when they have so many other things they could be doing.

 

Sorry HH not meant to be an attack on you but I think you are incorrect.

 

Let things carry on as they are.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

 

I think that it is rather unfair to criticise volunteers for doing their best when they have so many other things they could be doing.

 

 

Ditto!

 

This thread makes uncomfortable reading, as this is a discussion of the work of one volunteer reviewer compared to two others, I would have hoped it could have been sorted out privately.

[+Us 4 and Jess]

I reckon Deci is a slinky spring of flexability compared to the "outside" reviewer I had to deal with a couple of weeks ago who was a real jobs worth.

 

M

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

slinky spring of flexability

 

I love it! Where did you get that one from. It's worthy of Edmund Blackadder himself!

 

You're right of course.

P

[The Royles]

.....................................

 

The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache

 

That is a fixed statement which anyone submitting a Traditional cache must follow, and Reviewers must apply. To me personally that is a Rule. I'd be interested in the opinion of anyone who can show me any flexibility in that statement and as such my statement

 

I found a Trad Cache a while back where the co-ords were (to quote the cache page)

 

Coords taken from clearing about 20 paces away, due to tree cover.

 

So the rule may not be as inflexible as you seem to think.

 

This is quoted for info only, as I personally think that some of the guidelines should be taken as rules.l

[+Us 4 and Jess]

slinky spring of flexability

 

I love it! Where did you get that one from. It's worthy of Edmund Blackadder himself!

 

You're right of course.

P

 

I was trying to think of something bendy and I am sitting next to the stairs we used to roll them down the stairs when I was a bairn

 

M

Edited February 21, 2008 by Us 4 and Jess

[+mongoose39uk]

Guidelines or rules, does it really matter. Surprised how flexible the reviewers have been with some of the comments made about Deci to be honest.

 

I have found him just as flexible as the the red wine and real ale pair.

[+dino-irl]

Surprised how flexible the reviewers have been with some of the comments made about Deci to be honest.

Agreed....one of the forum rules is no personal attacks....just as well I'm not a forum moderator here

 

As to inflexibility, if you consider Deci to be inflexible it's just as well you're not submitting caches in Ireland....he's a real BarSteward

[Lactodorum]

Do you know, I've had enough public criticism of my colleague here. I think he has been remarkably restrained in this thread and I've personally had several requests/suggestions to close this thread which up to now I've resisted as I've felt the discussion on the differences between guidelines and rules merited more discussion.

 

I shall keep it open for now to allow the discussion to continue but I'll remove any more personal references.

[+mongoose39uk]

Do you know, I've had enough public criticism of my colleague here. I think he has been remarkably restrained in this thread and I've personally had several requests/suggestions to close this thread which up to now I've resisted as I've felt the discussion on the differences between guidelines and rules merited more discussion.

 

I shall keep it open for now to allow the discussion to continue but I'll remove any more personal references.

 

Well said!

[+Haggis Hunter]

Sorry HH not meant to be an attack on you but I think you are incorrect.

No need to apologise, as Lactodorum has said we are entitled to our opinion. You have put yours over extremely politely.

 

I found a Trad Cache a while back where the co-ords were (to quote the cache page)

 

Coords taken from clearing about 20 paces away, due to tree cover.

 

So the rule may not be as inflexible as you seem to think.

 

This is quoted for info only, as I personally think that some of the guidelines should be taken as rules.l

This is a hindsight statement.

 

I had forgot that I myself had an offset regular cache. That Lactodorum kindly gave me permission to have changed back from a multi to regular. This was of course a few years back. Things may have changed since then?

 

Do you know, I've had enough public criticism of my colleague here. I think he has been remarkably restrained in this thread and I've personally had several requests/suggestions to close this thread which up to now I've resisted as I've felt the discussion on the differences between guidelines and rules merited more discussion.

 

I shall keep it open for now to allow the discussion to continue but I'll remove any more personal references.

Perhaps yourself and Dino are correct? When I started this thread I had felt that I was making a public criticism. Perhaps I have been wrong and it has came across as a personal attack. This was certainly not my intention and I openly apologise to Dave for it appearing this way. I am SORRY.

 

I would like this thread to stay open, for I still believe that the guidelines should be discussed. I have no complaint if any of the moderators (including Dave) wish to edit any reference which has been made towards him.

[+kewfriend]

I have a lot of time for every person who has posted a comment on this thread - and I think its just about been handled with sensitivity.

 

I love HH's caches, I always enjoy AW's little grumbles and how the reviewers keep their Zaphod-head above water I'll never know.

 

I have always found our reviewers flexible and sensible. I have my grumbles (all those lost central London caches grrrrr), abd from time to time our USA cousins have me tearing my hair out till they realise that the USA is not the centre of the planet - its KEW!!

 

From time to time "I've stretched a point" on my caches, and the only one I felt narked about was the one that had to be archived when the Boy Scouts found it by accident ... but then boys will be boys .... and I did get back the whole container.

 

I've a joint new series about to hit the world and I know all the reviewers (worldwide) have been a little flexible in how they have allowed the series - so generally its a THUMBS UP from me here in the centre of the PLANET / UNIVERSE - aka KEW!

[Alan White]

Here's a figure that puts this discussion into perspective...

 

In the last seven days in the UK there have been roughly 380 caches published. How any of the three reviewers finds the time to do this "job" escapes me.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Alan White