Approvers

[+nmartin]

Is there a special approver for the Wherigo caches, or is it just the normal regional volunteers?

Edited March 3, 2008 by nmartin

[Ranger Fox]

As far as I am aware, the reviewers approve the geocaching aspect of Wherigo caches. A quick search of all Wherigo caches made this seem the case.

 

As for approving Wherigo cartridges in general, I suspect Groundspeak has a reactive approving process at the moment. When geocaching first came out, it was Groundspeak that reviewed every single cache submission. As the quantity increased, they asked other active community members to help, eventually forming the current state of things. I imagine Wherigo could go this way in the future.

 

If I had to choose a Wherigo approver for non-Wherigo caches, I would look at who is extremely active in playing cartridges and who makes a positive contribution in those logs, showing enthusiasm, a willingness to help, and an awareness of what Wherigo not only is but where it could go. I don't speak for Groundspeak, but such a statement seems sensible.

[Jeremy]

Reactive is a good response, Ranger Fox.

 

Because most Wherigo carts use existing landmarks as part of the experience there seems to be no reason, in my mind, to enforce a reviewer process. Instead we'll rely more on the user reviews of the individual cartridges and reporting mechanics of the site to let us know when there is an issue with a cart. The reviewer process is far more important for Wherigo caches since each cache container has a physical presence in the world. Our hope is that by having a more lenient system we can engage the community more to police itself.

 

Wherigo caches are still under review on Geocaching.com for the reasons outlined above.

[+X$r]

Reactive is a good response, Ranger Fox.

 

Because most Wherigo carts use existing landmarks as part of the experience there seems to be no reason, in my mind, to enforce a reviewer process. Instead we'll rely more on the user reviews of the individual cartridges and reporting mechanics of the site to let us know when there is an issue with a cart. The reviewer process is far more important for Wherigo caches since each cache container has a physical presence in the world. Our hope is that by having a more lenient system we can engage the community more to police itself.

 

Wherigo caches are still under review on Geocaching.com for the reasons outlined above.

If you find that you do need a reviewer later, I would be up for the task. As of right now, what keeps adult pictures or words out of the carts? I am thinking we want to stay fam-friendly....

[Ranger Fox]

The moment we have a "Hot Coffee" problem is the moment it's time to lock everything down and review the cartridges. But reviewing a compiled cartridge, I'd like to point out, would be difficult to catch it if the content was added as an easter egg, e.g. accessible only through certain, not normally performed, actions.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Ranger Fox

[+carleenp]

Reactive is a good response, Ranger Fox.

 

Because most Wherigo carts use existing landmarks as part of the experience there seems to be no reason, in my mind, to enforce a reviewer process. Instead we'll rely more on the user reviews of the individual cartridges and reporting mechanics of the site to let us know when there is an issue with a cart. The reviewer process is far more important for Wherigo caches since each cache container has a physical presence in the world. Our hope is that by having a more lenient system we can engage the community more to police itself.

 

Wherigo caches are still under review on Geocaching.com for the reasons outlined above.

If you find that you do need a reviewer later, I would be up for the task. As of right now, what keeps adult pictures or words out of the carts? I am thinking we want to stay fam-friendly....

 

For what it is worth, in the years that I have been caching, I am aware of few instances where adult materials were placed in a cache, and when they were, a reviewer would generally not have known it from the review page anyway. They were caught by others who found it and reported it.

 

I imagine, and certainly hope, that Wherigo cartridges will turn out the same so that it will not be a serious issue.

[+Starglider]

But reviewing a compiled cartridge, I'd like to point out, would be difficult to catch it if the content was added as an easter egg, e.g. accessible only through certain, not normally performed, actions.

Very true. Reviewing cartridges would require to view all images and videos and even listen to all audio material used and to have a look at the source code.

That would require a number of highly qualified reviewers spending a lot of time.

And they still might miss some easter eggs.

 

I believe the most realistic solution is to provide an easy method to report cartridges with inappropriate content. Of course you would still need people to check these reports.

At some point in the future when Wherigo got really, really big there might be so many complaints that Groundspeak will need to recruit volunteers.

Any bets on when that might be?

[Jeremy]

 

I believe the most realistic solution is to provide an easy method to report cartridges with inappropriate content. Of course you would still need people to check these reports.

At some point in the future when Wherigo got really, really big there might be so many complaints that Groundspeak will need to recruit volunteers.

Any bets on when that might be?

 

I'm hoping it won't ever get to the point where we have to have reviewers, at least proactively, looking at Wherigo cartridges. As a platform we should try and rely on the reporting mechanisms of the site to police ourselves.

 

We may get to the point, however, that we may want to filter out the cartridges that haven't been completed yet. That way when new ones come out you could at least get them "vouched for" by another user, hopefully with some street cred. This would, of course, be a filter that users could turn off if they want to be the first to try out the cartridge in their area. This doesn't just address the inappropriate type cartridges - it also covers the cartridges that haven't been adequately tested.

[+firennice]

bringing up old posts:

 

I was just thinking about people using copyrighted content, pictures, music, or commercial products without permission. Get you in a legal hole if some review is not set up.