Jump to content

I for one..........


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I for one am getting pretty cheesed off with all the posts seemingly posted to rile the current UK reviewers.

 

Lacto and Ecky have gone. Much as we regret their departure, they are gone and will not be returning.

Live with it, move on.

 

The current reviewers had no involvement in their departure but it appears that they are becoming the butt of everyone's angst.

 

Give them a break - cease the antagonistic posts - please.......... :)

Link to comment

Hear Hear... Support your local reviewers.

 

The UK is lucky to have such a team. Currently living in the US, I have one reviewer covering Nevada and Arizona. It can take a week to get something published.

Having just done a search (and I don't know how accurate this is in terms of actual workload), but AZ/NV currently come in at 14,500 caches and the UK as 34,300.

That's spread over 224,565 and 94,526 Square Miles respectively.

So the density is massively higher in UK which must make life far harder, especially with all the Land Owner agreements etc that need checking.

 

Bottom Line...

Support Your Local Reviewers!! (anybody have a contact for making bumper stickers???) :)

Link to comment

Lacto and Ecky have gone. Much as we regret their departure, they are gone and will not be returning.

Live with it, move on.

Yup, gone for good. Things change as you say.

 

We are where we are and I hope the local team get the support of everyone, the local caching community, Groundspeak and their colleagues from all corners of the world. I know what a difficult task they have so all power to their collective elbows.

Link to comment

As a noob and without knowing the politics that cause all the back stabing i would like to say i havent had a problem with the reviewers (except this one time when i wanted to place a cache in a kitten cemetery in a train station using firetacks......)

 

I like to go out of my way to praise them whenever I send a new cache for review I point out what a great job the reviewer is doing [:)]

 

Three cheers for the UK reviewers....................

 

HIP HIP.....

Link to comment

(except this one time when i wanted to place a cache in a kitten cemetery in a train station using firetacks......)

 

Very funny, I liked that.

 

Agree entirely with the topic sentiments, they do a great job.

 

p.s. Do they actually do it for free, like, no money whatsoever? If they do, then good on 'em.

p.p.s Do they have "proper" jobs as well? I'm just nosey really, I like to understand how folks earn a crust, 'cos there must be an easier way than mine, I just haven't found it yet.

Link to comment

(except this one time when i wanted to place a cache in a kitten cemetery in a train station using firetacks......)

 

Very funny, I liked that.

 

Agree entirely with the topic sentiments, they do a great job.

 

p.s. Do they actually do it for free, like, no money whatsoever? If they do, then good on 'em.

p.p.s Do they have "proper" jobs as well? I'm just nosey really, I like to understand how folks earn a crust, 'cos there must be an easier way than mine, I just haven't found it yet.

 

Yes we are Unpaid Volunteers :) who give our time freely for the benefit of our community's :ph34r:

 

Free time whats that :ph34r:

 

Oh you don't want my full time paying job, I'm paid by the Government, to be on call 24/7 365 days a year. :ph34r:

 

I'm my wives full time carer, and I get a princely sum per week that's less than the cost of a tank of fuel :ph34r:

Link to comment

(except this one time when i wanted to place a cache in a kitten cemetery in a train station using firetacks......)

 

Very funny, I liked that.

 

Agree entirely with the topic sentiments, they do a great job.

 

p.s. Do they actually do it for free, like, no money whatsoever? If they do, then good on 'em.

p.p.s Do they have "proper" jobs as well? I'm just nosey really, I like to understand how folks earn a crust, 'cos there must be an easier way than mine, I just haven't found it yet.

 

Yes we are Unpaid Volunteers :) who give our time freely for the benefit of our community's :ph34r:

 

Free time whats that :ph34r:

 

Oh you don't want my full time paying job, I'm paid by the Government, to be on call 24/7 365 days a year. :ph34r:

 

I'm my wives full time carer, and I get a princely sum per week that's less than the cost of a tank of fuel :ph34r:

 

YHM

Link to comment

I was reading this topic, and catching up on emails at the same time. I was thinking how the reviewers do get some unfair stick and that they do the best they can when up pops an email.

 

In this mail I see a cache has been archived for being either:

 

1) A re-used box and log book

2) Hidden in the exact location of an archived cache

3) A combination of the two

 

Now when I see rules being re-interpreted/re-invented like that I can see why some feel that the system is faulty.

 

I can imagine how the cache setter feels about the reviewing process :)

Link to comment

I was reading this topic, and catching up on emails at the same time. I was thinking how the reviewers do get some unfair stick and that they do the best they can when up pops an email.

 

In this mail I see a cache has been archived for being either:

 

1) A re-used box and log book

2) Hidden in the exact location of an archived cache

3) A combination of the two

 

Now when I see rules being re-interpreted/re-invented like that I can see why some feel that the system is faulty.

 

I can imagine how the cache setter feels about the reviewing process :ph34r:

I am aware of the cache being referred to here. As I have already stated in a previous thread I do not have to justify my decisions to anyone other than the cache owner and Groundspeak and will make no comment on decisions I have made. However I will repeat myself and say that once again we have cachers here who are seeing the end result of a long running situation, but who do not know what has gone on before, who are not party to any correspondence between myself, the cache owner, my colleagues and the correspondance when I've dealt with logs on the cache. However, using this complete lack of information the poster has said the rules are being re-interpreted and re-invented. Making speculative statements like this only serve to inflame the current 'Reviewer Bashing' posts.

 

I am a volunteer, I do this in my spare time and do not get paid. I have a real job full time job and after work I spend an hour or two each evening (and weekends) reviewing caches. After recent posts in these forums I am now seriously wondering why I bother to continue... please note, no smileys.

 

Graculus

PS - I do know why I bother, because the vast majority of my fellow cachers are a fantastic bunch of people and I get great pleasure from helping them enjoy Geocaching.... and the free :) T-Shirt of course.

 

Edited to add (for the benefit of the person whose post I quoted)... I don't see any problems with the cache you are referring to :ph34r:

Edited by Graculus
Link to comment

 

I am a volunteer, I do this in my spare time and do not get paid. I have a real job full time job and after work I spend an hour or two each evening (and weekends) reviewing caches. After recent posts in these forums I am now seriously wondering why I bother to continue... please note, no smileys.

 

 

Why on earth does this phrase get trotted out so often by reviewers, both in the distant past and now? What on earth does the payment status have to do with whether a job is considered to be done well or not?

 

If reviewers find that they are not being appriciated when working for free, don't do the job. Please don't ask everyone to applaud your role and decisions just because you do it for free. Doing something for free is no excuse for doing a poor job. I'm not for one minute suggesting you are doing a poor job, I have no opinion on that.

Edited by Icenians
Link to comment

Graculus,

 

People can only comment on the information they have, you seem to be of the opinion that no-one should ever offer an opinion (after all, when can you ever be sure that you have ALL the information).

 

Now correct me if I am wrong, but was there not a statement that the cache was archived because it was not a new cache, but the original one (archived) with original container and logbook.

 

It was this statement I commented on, and I find it rather sad that you are on here saying that that statement is incorrect. If you archive a cache and do not want the reasons to be seen, it would be better to say nothing than to make something up as THAT only serves to inflame the current 'Reviewer Bashing' posts.

Link to comment

 

I am a volunteer, I do this in my spare time and do not get paid. I have a real job full time job and after work I spend an hour or two each evening (and weekends) reviewing caches. After recent posts in these forums I am now seriously wondering why I bother to continue... please note, no smileys.

 

 

Why on earth does this phrase get trotted out so often by reviewers, both in the distant past and now? What on earth does the payment status have to do with whether a job is considered to be done well or not?

 

If reviewers find that they are not being appriciated when working for free, don't do the job. Please don't ask everyone to applaud your role and decisions just because you do it for free. Doing something for free is no excuse for doing a poor job. I'm not for one minute suggesting you are doing a poor job, I have no opinion on that.

"

 

"I'm not for one minute suggesting you are doing a poor job, I have no opinion on that."

 

Doesn't sound like that to me mate. If you have a specific problem with a reviewer/cache, then post it. Otherwise <remark deleted>.

 

Happy to help.

Edited by mandarin
Link to comment

 

Doesn't sound like that to me mate. If you have a specific problem with a reviewer/cache, then post it. Otherwise <remark deleted>.

 

Happy to help.

 

Charming.

 

I think if you read the post once again, maybe a little slower this time, you'll realise my comment was about the use of the 'I do it for free' phrase.

 

As the reviewer in question has never dealt with any of my caches I have no opinion on the quality of his work.

Edited by mandarin
Link to comment

Reviewers, moderators etc. I am sure like all the rest of us they make mistakes.

 

So what, not the end of the world like some would have it on here.

 

I may not agree with their decisions sometimes. Sure as H that they don't always agree with me.

 

Overall though I think they do a very good job and am glad it isn't me

Link to comment

 

Doesn't sound like that to me mate. If you have a specific problem with a reviewer/cache, then post it. Otherwise <remark deleted>.

 

Happy to help.

 

Charming.

 

I think if you read the post once again, maybe a little slower this time, you'll realise my comment was about the use of the 'I do it for free' phrase.

 

As the reviewer in question has never dealt with any of my caches I have no opinion on the quality of his work.

 

Gosh, I'm sorry, I've just re-read your post, really slowly, 'cos ah is slow innit.

I apologise for my "<remark deleted>" comment, as it was clearly not up to your normal standard of rhetoric in every day life, you must receive worse from your workmates on a daily basis. I hope.

 

What is your problem with "I do it for free"....

 

The reviewers do it for free, on top of a full time job...go hide in a hole mate, before I get banned.

Edited by mandarin
Link to comment

At this point I'll remind posters to this thread of a couple of the Forum guidelines:

 

"1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect."

 

and also

 

"3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated..."

 

Please continue on topic and use appropriate language when posting your comments.

 

Thanks you

 

mandarin

Link to comment

If anybody is not happy with the way the reviewers are doing the task then all I can say is 'Volunteer to do the job yourself, for free' otherwise leave the volunteers alone.

I have been in the situation where you are given 'guidelines' and are left to interpret them yourself and you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, many was the time that I sat at home and thought "why do I even bother" and then I remembered all the sincere people who gained enjoyment from my volunteer work and decided " to hell with the moaners, they can all go and whistle"

 

I have seen some decisions I have not agreed with but then again not everybody is as perfect as the bashers appear to think they themselves are.

 

If they decided to resign and no other volunteers decided to come foreward, and with all the slagging and bashing that has taken place in the last few days who could blame others for not stepping up to the plate, to take over then we will have no reviewers and therefore no new caches to hunt.

 

Thanks to Graculus for his help with finding a suitable location for a recent cache and also thanks to Deceangi for his help in un-archiving a cache for me to re-use the name.

Edited by DrDick&Vick
Link to comment

Deci, Graculus and Alba, you all do a great job for what seems to be an increasingly unappreciative caching community.

 

Volunteering 20+ hours of you time every week to help the rest of us definitely goes above the call of duty. I wonder how many of the detractors would give up so much of their time so readily.

 

Thank you all for your great work :)

Link to comment
I for one..........am just one. :)

Well done to SP for keeping away from this one. :ph34r:

Absolutely my pleasure, but now I'm here, I'd like to genuinely and seriously volunteer for the role of reviewer and/or forum moderator. Both look a blast! With so many of my caches going and my watch list being purged, plus enthusiasm for actually finding boxes on the wain, I have more time (far fewer emails to read) and am ready to put my money (in the currency of my 'free time') where my mouth is; I've only ever wanted what's best for UK caching and I believe I'd have a valuable contribution to make, in terms of helping the current, seemingly overworked, team.
Link to comment
Hopefully hell will freeze over first
I take it I can't rely on your vote then?
Just to clarify, you don't volunteer, you get asked.
I know, and there aren't elections either, but that should be noted anyone saying 'I'd like to see you do better' and the like. Still, my offer stands. I await the call from Jeremy :)

 

Edited for reasons I don't have to explain or justify.

Edited by Simply Paul
Link to comment

Deci, Graculus and Alba, you all do a great job for what seems to be an increasingly unappreciative caching community <snip....>

 

definitely goes above the call of duty.... <snip>

 

Know what? I was outraged at the weekend when a reviewer dared to attend the same event as me.... we all went out cache hunting, and someone at that event had the audacity to say "If Deci is here, who is reviewing caches" so I explained that there is more than one reviewer, but that there will always be times when one or two (or possibly all) reviewers will not be publishing caches.

Their response?

They shouldn't do it if they can't commit all their time to it... imagine if one of us had a query on a cache and they weren't there to answer it!!!!!!
:ph34r::)

 

I had to gently explain that they are not paid etc.... but it just goes to show that they are appreciated and that the level of commitment they have IS almost 24/7

 

Do all the slagging off you want on here, I appreciate the work they do!

Link to comment

So, to clarify, we are now no longer permitted to re-use containers and logbooks from previous caches? If so, that does seem rather strange and an explanation as to why would surely help people to understand, especially as re-use of containers has in the past often been suggested by reviewers and is in any case a sensible way to minimise financial and environmental costs.

 

To enable meaningful discussion the cache mentioned by The Royles is GC1HMNC.

Link to comment

So, to clarify, we are now no longer permitted to re-use containers and logbooks from previous caches? If so, that does seem rather strange and an explanation as to why would surely help people to understand, especially as re-use of containers has in the past often been suggested by reviewers and is in any case a sensible way to minimise financial and environmental costs.

 

To enable meaningful discussion the cache mentioned by The Royles is GC1HMNC.

 

Actually a full discussion took place between the cache owner and reviewer. The cache owner had no complaints over how the cache was actioned, especially as there are issues which are not shown on the logs made to the cache page. The reviewers are restricted by confidentiality from discussing these issues [unless everyone would like every discussion about every issue we've discussed with you in confidence brought into the forums?]. If the cache owner wishes to post about the issues that is his prerogative.

 

Before you start castigating reviewers, why not actually contact the cache owner and see if he's got any complaints over what happened about the cache. As apart from the reviewers he is the only one who fully knows what went on, and unlike reviewers is free to openly discus what went on!

 

What I can tell you is that there was a issue with both the container and location which due to a misunderstanding with a third party was not resolved initially. This issue was finally resolved and the cache is live.

 

And no Allan we are not stopping and never will stop people from reusing cache locations or containers, provided that there are no issues with either.

Link to comment

An Idea.... If you dont like Groundspeak's rules and guidelines or the way they are used by the reviewers/ moderators.... don't used the site... dont use the cache listings. Put your $30 towards your own listing site.

Then the few people who actually agree with you would have somewhere to list their caches. Don't forget you will need at least two dedicated servers with someone who's good at databases to run them for you you wont need any revewers or mods because there won't be any rules. The only problem is that after about 12 months caching would be banned in the UK or all of us would be spotting fast food locationless caches (no flames I liked locationless)

 

When you joined this site you agreed to the rules and guidelines as laid down by Groundspeak if you don't like them don't play their game. If they want to they can change the rules, hide the rules, or make them up as they go along ITS THEIR SITE

 

The UK volunteers do a thankless job very well, I would think when they took the (JOB??) that they agreed they would follow the R&G set down (or not) and it's not their fault if the goal posts keep moving. They are human and do there best. So why when they make a little mistake or, without proof, someone thinks they have do a few moaning minis leap on their backs demanding THEY change the R&G

If it's YOUR cache they won't review complain to Groundspeak

If you get your wrist slapped on the forum and you think it's wrong complain to Groundspeak

If you think you should have been offered the (job) and didn't get over it it was Groundspeak who made the final choice

 

And finaly get off their backs ...thank them for the 100s of caches they review and not the one of two which they can't pass because THEY are only trying to follow the R&G. This forum is a great place sometimes spoiled by a very few people trying to score points over others

<rant /off>

Link to comment

And no Allan we are not stopping and never will stop people from reusing cache locations or containers, provided that there are no issues with either.

That's good to hear, though it's difficult to see what issue there could possibly be with re-using a container and logbook, and unless you tell us what issues there might be then we will never know and that unwritten rule may continue to be broken.

 

The rest of your response adequately demonstrates the point John (Mad H@ter) made in another thread. Whenever a question is asked a wall is put up and no discussion can take place. It's not a question of breaching reviewer confidentiality (it's a game, for heaven's sake, not a doctor discussing a terminal disease with a patient): it's a question of ensuring that changes and additions to rules are debated appropriately and then publicised so that everyone knows what they are and why they are. Openness is the key, and it's not necessary to breach any confidentiality: the issue can be discussed or explained in general terms.

 

Finally, please could you do me the courtesy of spelling my name correctly?

Link to comment

........... it's a question of ensuring that changes and additions to rules are debated appropriately and then publicised so that everyone knows what they are and why they are. Openness is the key, and it's not necessary to breach any confidentiality: the issue can be discussed or explained in general terms.

 

Finally, please could you do me the courtesy of spelling my name correctly?

 

Why Alan (1 "l" only!) it is one of those occasions where we are in complete agreement :)

 

Despite what it may appear I am 100% behind our current reviewing and moderating complement. Of all people myself and Peter know the pressures you must be under from elesewhere.

 

But I agree totally that more transparency - without breach of confidentiality - would be very welcome. However the trouble is that, unless there has been a major policy change elsewhere, edicts come from above expecting revisions to cache review policy that may not be not fully explained.

 

I have no doubt that - still - any amount of debate amongst UK cachers is very unlikely to result in a major change in GSP policy. As many have said they own the part of the game we play, they therefore can set the rules.

 

It is, however, a great shame when what amounts to a multi-national concern will not listen to its customers - which is what we are - and more of a shame when they seemingly often refuse to even communicate.

 

(Which made Michael's recent post on these boards a refreshing change.)

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

Link to comment

 

Despite what it may appear I am 100% behind our current reviewing and moderating complement. Of all people myself and Peter know the pressures you must be under from elesewhere.

 

I feel that this is a good moment to point out that I've had nearly 100 caches published, and without exception the review process (by the past and current team) has been handled in absolutely first-class fashion. Thanks, folks!

:):)

(Today at least, it's not a thankless task!).

Edited by Happy Humphrey
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 5
×
×
  • Create New...