The Review Process

[+kewfriend]

Before I open this topic, I would like to say that overwhelmingly the way that GC.COM operates has my full admiration and support. However .... As organisations grow they need to be able to adapt to change and often organisations need to formalise unofficial operating practises which may have served well in less busy times.

 

I am aware that bar a small core of Lackeys, generally GC.COM is a goodwill based organisation reliant on volunteers and cooperation. This is both a strength and a complicating factor.

 

Generally GC.COM does invite properly consensus views and comments on its changes and developments. Not all are always welcome even if the reasoning is understood. The main area that may still be opaque seems to be the review process itself and in particular the processes and procedures which reviewers are meant to follow - and here I am not referring just to the judging of caches but also to how reviewers are expected to interact with each other and feed back and respond to geocachers on a wide range of issues. A simple example - if an email other than a cache reviewer note is sent to and received by a reviewer, should it at least be acknowledged - or should it be explicit to all geocachers that direct emailing of reviewers is not acceptable?

 

At this stage rather than 'sound off on issues' that are of my particular concern, it might be useful to see if other geo-cachers also feel that there are issues that need to be opened for discussion and what areas of GC.COM operation could benefit from more transparency?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Before I open this topic, I would like to say that overwhelmingly the way that GC.COM operates has my full admiration and support. However .... As organisations grow they need to be able to adapt to change and often organisations need to formalise unofficial operating practises which may have served well in less busy times.

 

I am aware that bar a small core of Lackeys, generally GC.COM is a goodwill based organisation reliant on volunteers and cooperation. This is both a strength and a complicating factor.

 

Generally GC.COM does invite properly consensus views and comments on its changes and developments. Not all are always welcome even if the reasoning is understood. The main area that may still be opaque seems to be the review process itself and in particular the processes and procedures which reviewers are meant to follow - and here I am not referring just to the judging of caches but also to how reviewers are expected to interact with each other and feed back and respond to geocachers on a wide range of issues. A simple example - if an email other than a cache reviewer note is sent to and received by a reviewer, should it at least be acknowledged - or should it be explicit to all geocachers that direct emailing of reviewers is not acceptable?

 

At this stage rather than 'sound off on issues' that are of my particular concern, it might be useful to see if other geo-cachers also feel that there are issues that need to be opened for discussion and what areas of GC.COM operation could benefit from more transparency?

First, I must preface my notes by stating up front that it was a little hard deciphering what you were tying to say in your post above, as your prose is a bit dense and apocryphal. However, if I get your gist, you seem to be asking for greater interactivity and responsiveness on the part of reviewers, and for greater transparency in the review process. If this are indeed the things for which you are lobbying, here are my responses:

 

First, Groundspeak offers its services for free to the vast majority of its members, and is supported largely by the percentage of members who choose to opt for premium-level membership, along with limited revenue from website ads and product sales.

 

Next, Groundspeak, despite offering free service to most of the site its users, is nonetheless a private for-profit company. In other words, it is NOT a non-profit or charitable organization, nor is it a taxpayer-supported government agency purposed with serving the public.

 

Next, one of the ways in which Groundspeak keeps costs low and manages to offer free service to most of the site users is by utilizing the willing services of a team of volunteer reviewers.

 

Next, let me ask you, when was the last time that you asked your car dealership, your local supermarket, or your electric utility company for greater transparency?

 

You may wish to consider the fact that volunteer reviewers are entirely unreimbursed for their free service, and have only limited time and limited energy to devote to their duties.

 

You may also wish to consider the fact that if Groundspeak were to switch from a limited-sized team of volunteer reviewers to using a much larger -- and therefore more responsive and able to respond more quickly -- team of paid reviewers, along with investing in the management personnel needed to train and supervise them, and also were to offer a fully-staffed Institutional Transparency Department to address your needs, then the following would be true:

• there would no longer be any free services available to anyone, and rather, everyone wishing to use the site or other services would need to be a paying member
  
• monthly membership fees, in order to support the infrastructure for which you have asked, would likely need to be on the order of about $26 per month per member.
  

Alternatively, if you still want that for which you are asking, but concomitantly, you do not wish to see the above-outlined membership fee/tier emplaced, are you then willing and able to donate 2.9 million dollars per year to Groundspeak in order to support the organizational capabilities which you have requested?

 

No? Then what am I missing here?

 

[Keystone]

From a fairly opaque post I was able to extract two specific questions or issues. First, that it's not clear how reviewers are expected to interact with one another and be consistent in applying the guidelines. To this, I note that the reviewers have our very own separate forum where we chat about listing guidelines and get second opinions on individual caches. We also have direct access to Groundspeak in various ways.

 

Why do you ask? If your goal is rigid uniformity in the way the guidelines are applied, be careful what you ask for. A primary benefit of the decentralized volunteer network is the ability to tailor the flexible guidelines to fit the local situation. The railroad guideline is not enforced identically in Pittsburgh and London, and it shouldn't be. If it bothers you that cache A in Berlin is published 130 metres away from its neighbor while cache B in Sydney is turned down at 140 metres, be careful before asking for a rigid rule that would reject your cache automatically if it is 159 metres from the next nearest cache.

 

Second, you question how reviewers are expected to interact with the geocachers they serve. For cache reviews, each reviewer follows the method that works best for them -- either e-mail or reviewer notes on the cache page. For general inquiries, sending the reviewer an e-mail is fine. If the reviewer is retired, on vacation, etc., you may not receive a response. If your message doesn't require a response, you may not receive a response. (I have a message asking me to post a reminder note on a cache requiring maintenance; my post to that cache also constitutes my "reply" to the e-mail.) If the reviewer is extra busy, you may not receive a response. (I have a message complaining about a geocoin gone missing; I have no jurisdiction over geocoins.) If you've written 8 times about the same issue and have been told "no" 8 times, you may not receive any response to the 9th message.

 

If at any time, you are not happy with the level of service you receive from a Groundspeak volunteer, there is a dedicated e-mail contact address for the purpose of escalating complaints to Groundspeak: appeals @ geocaching.com. This address directly reaches those Groundspeak employees who are responsible for coordinating the work of the volunteer network.

 

At this stage rather than 'sound off on issues' that are of my particular concern, it might be useful to see if other geo-cachers also feel that there are issues that need to be opened for discussion and what areas of GC.COM operation could benefit from more transparency?

The forums work better if there are separate threads for specific issues, rather than a general thread saying "here is a collection of transparency issues." Please use this thread to bring up specific questions about the reviewer communication process. Volunteers like myself are happy to respond, as we do with dozens of questions here each and every day. That's transparency.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Keystone

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Y'know, I just received a very funny phone call from a local cacher who lurks on the forums but who never, posts here. He reminded me that in my original reply, I forgot to make one very important point regarding the OP's demands for what amounts to "better and faster customer service". Here then, without delay, is the point:

 

Would you prefer to receive from Groundspeak the level of customer support which you receive from your Internet Service Provider (ISP) and from your PC manufacturer, and from your software vendor? Last time I tried calling customer service for ANY of the above-listed services, I had to navigate through a horribly complex and unfriendly telephone voicemail tree and finally ended up on hold for 17 minutes before I got to speak to an outsourced off-shore customer service representative who barely spoke passable English, yet was very good-natured, but who, unfortunately, had received exactly two days of training from customer service training manual authored by morons who did not really understand the company's product at all, and I then spent four hours walking through moronic, useless and irrelevant trouble-shooting steps with the CS rep, just so that I could be allowed by my vendor to file a "trouble ticket" and then be condemned to spending the next four months on the phone trying to get my problem resolved. And I am hardly alone; a quick perusal of the web or of any PC magazine will show you that my experience was the norm and that customer service in the above-mentioned sectors is so bad that it should better be called "Customer torture -- let's torture our customers so that they know we despise them!" So, my added question, beyond my initial questions posed in my first reply, to the OP is:

Is this the kind of service for which you are asking? Do you want outsourced off-shore cache reviewing on a par with the paltry, incompetent, insulting and flawed outsourced offshore customer services offered by your ISP, PC manufacturer or software vendor?

 

Edited March 6, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[Keystone]

If you live in India, your cache reviews and customer service requests are outsourced to a guy in Atlanta, Georgia. I think that's exquisite.

[+kewfriend]

Thr original post was deliberately carefully worded so as not give cause for any 'back to arch'.

 

I am aware that bar a small core of Lackeys, generally GC.COM is a goodwill based organisation reliant on volunteers and cooperation. This is both a strength and a complicating factor.

I am well aware of the nature of GC.COM and happily a Premium Member - (and would pay more!)

 

I was a little surprised at the (defensive) response from our Moderator because the subtitle gives a fairly transparent indication of what I perceive is the underlying issue. I have no particular views on 'uniformity' - in some cases its applicable in others it is not. What I have noticed is that the manner in which the geo-cacher is 'treated' by reviewers on cache submission does vary quite a lot - and of course there may well be due cause. What is not transparent is whether the 'due cause' may be reasonable or not, nor the code of response and methodology of dealing with clients that GC.COM may expect from its reviewers.

 

I have set all sorts of caches and I have been happy to moderate them (and TBs) in the light of comments received from reviewers, GC.COM and ordinairy cachers - that is not the issue. What may be more of an issue is when a cache setter suspects that a reviewer has an 'axe to grind' how does one untangle that?

 

For reasons that our Moderator may be aware of I do not wish to reveal details here - but there is an issue that needs looking at probably. Hence "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

[+sbell111]

Thr original post was deliberately carefully worded so as not give cause for any 'back to arch'.

 

I am aware that bar a small core of Lackeys, generally GC.COM is a goodwill based organisation reliant on volunteers and cooperation. This is both a strength and a complicating factor.

I am well aware of the nature of GC.COM and happily a Premium Member - (and would pay more!)

 

I was a little surprised at the (defensive) response from our Moderator because the subtitle gives a fairly transparent indication of what I perceive is the underlying issue. ...

Defensive response???

 

I was impressed that he kept his primary response so professional. He calmly answered your concern to give you information that it appeared (from your post) that you weren't aware of.

 

His second post was just downright funny.

 

(Personally, I started three different snarky replies to your post and decided against sending all three, out of respect for the guidelines and fear of Michael.)

Edited March 6, 2008 by sbell111

[Keystone]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Being a lawyer, I am fully conversant in Latin. So, I already answered your question in my prior post.

If at any time, you are not happy with the level of service you receive from a Groundspeak volunteer, there is a dedicated e-mail contact address for the purpose of escalating complaints to Groundspeak: appeals @ geocaching.com. This address directly reaches those Groundspeak employees who are responsible for coordinating the work of the volunteer network.

Since you are unwilling to share further details here in the forums, I highly recommend that you follow this advice. Groundspeak is unlikely to see and react to your posts here, but you will receive a reply if you write to the above address.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Keystone

[magellan315]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

Translates to, who watches the watchers. For those of you who do not know latin.

Edited March 6, 2008 by magellan315

[+Stargazer22]

Thanks for the interpretation!

That 'fairly transparent' indication was as clear as mud to me!!

 

I think the volunteers do a fantastic job at what they do.

For one, I am very glad that they are able to apply the rules slightly differently for different areas and requirements. This allows the greatest freedom for all while still keeping to the guidelines.

 

I, for one, would truly not like to see the application of all rules straight across the board for everyone.

Doing such would bring us all down to the lowest common denominator, providing the most strict guidelines for us all to follow. For instance, I would not relish the idea that my hides in remote forested areas must comply with the harshest regulations in a large city that has placed restrictions on geocaching.

[+StarBrand]

I have a co-worker that insists we all "acknowledge" we read and received "ALL" of her emails. Taken to the logical extreme you would have an exchange similar to the following.....

 

Here is the final data for the 3rd Quarter Report

 

Thanks that will be Helpful in completeing the report.

 

No need to thank me I knew you needed it

 

thanks for letting me know

 

I appreciate your thanks - just my job

 

got your appreciation email - I appreciate that

 

glad to know I am appreciated.

 

got that email above

 

yup

 

etc etc

 

............. Could go on forever.........

 

Not ALL emails require a response. If you need a response - ask for one.

 

If you don't like what a reviewer has done - use the appeals address. Or Bring the issue to the forums in a polite, respectful way and see what others have to say.

[+CYBret]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Being a lawyer, I am fully conversant in Latin. So, I already answered your question in my prior post.

 

And here I had to rely on Alan Moore comic books!

[+kewfriend]

His second post was just downright funny.

and witty! I will consider this thread closed and to be pursued "in another place", which if you are in UK means The House of Lords. I do however suspect that the issues of concern will come back to haunt GC.COM unless processes evolve to deal with them.

[+sbell111]

The GC.com web site section of these forums is a good place to suggest specific processes.

[+Thrak]

If you live in India, your cache reviews and customer service requests are outsourced to a guy in Atlanta, Georgia. I think that's exquisite.

 

While I always appreciate the reasonable, even tempered, and well thought out responses by Keystone, I might have to vote this one of his best posts ever.

[+mtn-man]

If you live in India, your cache reviews and customer service requests are outsourced to a guy in Atlanta, Georgia. I think that's exquisite.

 

While I always appreciate the reasonable, even tempered, and well thought out responses by Keystone, I might have to vote this one of his best posts ever.

Here here. How ironic is that.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

Translates to, who watches the watchers. For those of you who do not know latin.

 

Volunteer Reviewers watch the listing guidelines, Groundspeak employees watch the Volunteer Reviewers, Jeremy watches the staff Reviewer Boss, and only God watches Jeremy, with occasional guidance from Michael.

 

I can tell you that the system works... I've seen it from both sides. If you have an issue submit a complaint or appeal and Groundspeak will be very fair in adjudging its merit and will act accordingly.

 

Some days you get the bear, some days the bear gets you.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Thr original post was deliberately carefully worded so as not give cause for any 'back to arch'.

 

I am aware that bar a small core of Lackeys, generally GC.COM is a goodwill based organisation reliant on volunteers and cooperation. This is both a strength and a complicating factor.

I am well aware of the nature of GC.COM and happily a Premium Member - (and would pay more!)

 

I was a little surprised at the (defensive) response from our Moderator because the subtitle gives a fairly transparent indication of what I perceive is the underlying issue. I have no particular views on 'uniformity' - in some cases its applicable in others it is not. What I have noticed is that the manner in which the geo-cacher is 'treated' by reviewers on cache submission does vary quite a lot - and of course there may well be due cause. What is not transparent is whether the 'due cause' may be reasonable or not, nor the code of response and methodology of dealing with clients that GC.COM may expect from its reviewers.

 

I have set all sorts of caches and I have been happy to moderate them (and TBs) in the light of comments received from reviewers, GC.COM and ordinairy cachers - that is not the issue. What may be more of an issue is when a cache setter suspects that a reviewer has an 'axe to grind' how does one untangle that?

 

For reasons that our Moderator may be aware of I do not wish to reveal details here - but there is an issue that needs looking at probably. Hence "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

What defensive response from a reviewer are you talking about? Keystone's two replies were very civil, clear and helpful, and far from defensive.

 

...ohhhh ...I see ...in your rulebook, any reply where the poster does not agree with your thesis is "defensive".

 

sigh....

Edited March 6, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Quiggle]

I will consider this thread closed and to be pursued "in another place", which if you are in UK means The House of Lords. I do however suspect that the issues of concern will come back to haunt GC.COM unless processes evolve to deal with them.

No problem. Thread closed at OP's request.