New policy regarding maintenance?

[+baloo&bd]

And neither of those make sense. Lets allow the people with polluting cars continue to pollute the environment. And when we add a safety rule to a sport, lets let the players who want to put themselves in greater danger than the current rules allow do so.

 

Come on - I live in a state where seatbelts are required for all passengers in a car, but within a year or two of passing that law, they passed a law allowing bikers to decide if they wanted to wear a helmet or not. Inconsistency. That is a major problem. (also considering I am one of the people who has to scrape the bikers off the road when they get in an accident... helmets SHOULDN'T be a choice... the bikers don't have to scrape themselves off the road...)

 

Inconsistency is bad. Period.

 

You might be right on those two examples. One is a public safety issue and should be consistent for both new and old vehicles. The other is a matter of personal choice. As an MSF trainer I would always recommend wearing a helmet and always do. I consider those who do not as foolish, however neither seatbelt use nor helmet use should be mandatory.

 

A better analogy may be your home. If you bought your home in 1979 and then in 2008 they passed an SSA, should you have to pay it or should you be grandfathered in? If your sales tax went from 4.7% to 9%, should you have to go back and pay tax for everything you purchased prior to the raise? If a community adopts a no antenna rule (many have) should the 72 year old retired machinist be forced to get cable?

 

All of these things are things that the public controls through what we vote on and who we vote in. Groundspeak is not, nor ever claimed to be a democracy. They are a listing service to help facilitate the hobby of geocaching and implement what they think will benefit the majority users and attract new ones.Groundspeak clearly wanted to do away with virtuals, there were some that wanted them to stay(myself among them) because many had significance beyond just a place. GS found a compromise and drew a line in the sand. It was actually quite reasonable.

 

iIf you were to consider this as a business model, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the business community that would not consider it an overwhelming success, both in growth and retention. Even to the point of retaining customers that most businesses would have fired long ago.

 

To this point, the users have spoken very loud and clear. They continue to contribute through subscriptions. Many make suggestions and some are implemented, some are not and some just take a much lower priority (such as showing caches on Goggle Maps that no longer exist ) Like with any other business, we can talk with our dollars. You and I are both free to go elsewhere, there are alternatives. They're just not as appealing. Guess free enterprise still works.

[+Kealia]

I don't agree with that either... and I wrote it. The point I'm making is that GS needs to start being consistent and stop being "We're gonna do whatever we want, even if our rules (sorry, GUIDELINES) say otherwise. If the rules (sorry again, GUIDELINES) don't agree, we'll just write a new one to make it fit, or do it anyway and if people realize we're not following our own rules (GUIDELINES), too bad."

 

You can't have new Earthcaches allowed (which are virts) and not other virts. You can't allow virts and webcams to remain, if your rules say they don't.

 

They should exist - they should be allowed to have new ones. My point is that they are not consistent, and don't seem to care that they're not. See signature file below.

You know what? I see the same thing from you in every post of every thread you're in. At least you are consistent. At this point, I can't put any weight in what you say because it's a one-track no-flexibility mindset that has no room for other opinions or POV. If somebody disagrees with you, they are wrong.

Groundspeak sucks, they don't listen, I don't like their rules (sorry guidelines ). It's old.

 

I too like to push for quality, don't sweep things under the rug and challenge things that I think are wrong. In this case however, it's just an agenda that's old, sorry.

 

Your sig lines read like a martyr. Good grief.

 

All of these things are things that the public controls through what we vote on and who we vote in. Groundspeak is not, nor ever claimed to be a democracy. They are a listing service to help facilitate the hobby of geocaching and implement what they think will benefit the majority users and attract new ones.Groundspeak clearly wanted to do away with virtuals, there were some that wanted them to stay(myself among them) because many had significance beyond just a place. GS found a compromise and drew a line in the sand. It was actually quite reasonable.

 

If you were to consider this as a business model, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the business community that would not consider it an overwhelming success, both in growth and retention. Even to the point of retaining customers that most businesses would have fired long ago.

 

To this point, the users have spoken very loud and clear. They continue to contribute through subscriptions. Many make suggestions and some are implemented, some are not and some just take a much lower priority (such as showing caches on Goggle Maps that no longer exist ) Like with any other business, we can talk with our dollars. You and I are both free to go elsewhere, there are alternatives. They're just not as appealing. Guess free enterprise still works.

 

Well said.

 

I realize I was going off topic, sorry.

 

Yes, reviewers act differently based on how they want to run their areas. Some are more aggressive (for lack of a better word) than others but that's the way it is. They are acting on our best wishes and I've been on the end of the stick where a cache got archived because I couldn't maintain it quick enough. It happens. The world still turned and I lived to cache another day.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Kealia