I'm Mad as Hell

[+tozainamboku]

I PM'ed Moose Mob after he locked the thread that was started after mtn-man had locked a thread where a cacher complained that Groundspeak was treating his cache unfairly for some reason. I told him that after the cooling off period he imposed I intended to start a thread to discuss the guideline in question in the original thread. While I agree that the OP needed to change his cache page, I could see how this was not clear cut. There are several things you can ask people to do on your cache pages. For an event, you can even ask for donations to help defray costs. However, given what has happened in the forum in the interim time I feel like discussing a different topic. This is the way people respond to threads started by someone who is angry at a reviewer or Groundspeak.

 

The original thread last week concerned a request from Groundspeak to the OP to change some wording on his cache page. It wasn't even clear which guideline was the issue. The email from Groundspeak referred to a TOU violation. The discussion in the forum dealt with the No Solicit guidelines. No wonder the OP was confused about what was being asked. Most of the responses failed to detect the confusion here, feeling the ofending phrase on the cache page was so obviously in violation of something that the the OP should simply comply with Groundspeak's request and remove it. The OP got a little testy and began using foul language and attacks on those posting to the thread. Instead of getting the chance to discuss the real issue with the cache page we got a locked thread. An attempt to start an new thread to discuss the issue was doing a bit better, however Moose Mob thought it moving in the direction of name calling as well. I'll admit that I did not help when I used the term "forum mob" in one of my posts.

 

Little did I know that during the cooling off period we would see numerous threads started (and some of them locked) because cacher owners were angry at Groundspeak for changing the formatting of the website and breaking the way their cache pages look.

 

It seems that many threads are started by someone who is angry at someone. Either a reviewer has unfairly applied a guideline to their cache or Groundspeak isn't listening to the needs of the community. Some of the forum regulars have seen these threads so often that they respond in an automatic way. Perhaps without realizing this, there often seems to be a mob response ganging up on the person who posted in anger or frustration. The responses often sound as if the reviewers are perfect, that Groundspeak never makes mistakes, that all is good. To the person who started the thread, this response comes across as not understanding their complaint and not being helpful in trying to find a resolution. The OPs of these thread become defensive. They may start making comments questioning other people's intelligence or comprehension ability. Inappropriate language is sometimes used in anger and frustration. The threads get locked and we loose the chance to discuss the real issues.

 

There is usually some good reason for someone to feel strongly enough to post in the forums. If they didn't understand the guidelines or the guidelines appear to have been arbitrarily applied to them, it is because the guidelines or the rationale for them aren't clear (or they found a grandfathered example from before the guideline was adopted). If someone spent hours trying to make their cache page look nice and a change to the website breaks their HTML, it understandable for them to expect a decent explanation of the rationale for the the change and perhaps a little heads-up so they can prepare for it.

 

Instead of responses that come across as unsympathetic, what I would like to see is a considered discussion of what the guideline really means and why the cache owner should change the cache page. Take the time to see their point of view and offer suggestions of ways to accomplish what they are trying to do within the guidelines. In the case of a website change, start a discussion of what Groundspeak's goals are in making changes or a discussion of how to write Greasemonkey scripts to customize the look and feel of the website the way you want it. Sometimes we get these discussion and it's then that these forums rise to their potential. Other times we get shouting matches, name calling, and put downs. This is my suggestion. The next time someone comes and starts a thread all angry and mad, take the time to respond "I understand your point, Groundspeak or the reviewer could have been clearer about their reasons for doing whatever they did. Here's why I think they did it ... And here's what you can do to fix it ..." Clearly some people will not want to hear what they can do to fix it as they feel they have done everything right and now someone has gotten in the way. We may not be able to reach the people who just come on the forums to vent. But sometimes someone will calm down and begin to think rationally and we can be there to help find solutions when they are ready to look for them. And later others with similar questions can learn from these threads. Sure they won't go down in history with the Ringbones or the Geocaching hates chinldren threads, but on the other hand it might just improve the reputation that the forums are getting among the geocachers who mostly avoid them now.

[+narcissa]

Assuming that there is a mob "ganging up" on people is a little ridiculous. Overwhelming agreement among the commenters doesn't constitute "ganging up."

 

In the case you've brought up, there were many, many helpful suggestions, and links to BOTH the TOU and the guidelines. The problem wasn't a "mob," the problem was that the original poster felt that his case was somehow special and the guidelines didn't apply to him.

 

I don't think anybody sees the reviewers as "perfect" - not even the reviewers themselves. But the guidelines are easily accessible, they aren't particularly long or difficult to read, and every cache owner agrees to them each and every time they make edits to their cache pages. The case you want to discuss was not confusing at all - the cache owner was buying time to argue his case, even though his actions were unambiguous violations of BOTH the guidelines and the TOU.

[+wimseyguy]

I'm sorry but random venting about venting is scheduled for Thursday, not Tuesday.

 

Seriously, my experience is that most of these threads are started by cachers who have already had the specific info provided by their local reviewer, but that just isn't good enough for them and their sense of entitlement. 2010 certainly seems to be starting off with more than its fair share of venting threads as opposed to routine requests for info or discussion though. Maybe we are all just channeling Howard Beale a little too much these days?

[+buttaskotch]

Hear, Hear!

very well written.

That should be pinned so all cachers can read and take a time out before going on a tirade.

[+Castle Mischief]

The threads that I'm seeing get locked:

 

- Threads where a cacher either didn't read the guidelines or didn't understand the guidelines and then wants to debate the guidelines after they have been explained.

 

- Duplicate threads that were stared because a cacher didn't look through the first five threads in a given forum to see if the topic was already being discussed- complaints regarding the visual design and or technical bugs in the last release come to mind.

 

Both are failings on the part of the person posting the thread. I don't see the need to be "mad as hell" because of the failings of some people in regard to forum usage or guideline comprehension.

 

I'm posting this reply without seeing any other replies so I hope you won't deem it a "mob response".

Edited January 19, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+Atropos3]

I might be new to Geocaching, but I am not new to forum culture. I can tell you that how your post is received and the types of responses you get has EVERYTHING to do with the tone of your original post, how you frame your "questions" and how you respond to people that disagree with you.

 

I read the post you are referring to. As I said, I am new to GeoCaching so I am fairly objective when it comes to the rules and how they are enforced. I don't have anything personally invested, you know?

 

Here's the thing about that post. If you think that you don't have a duck on your head and 15 people tell you that you DO have a duck on your head, you may not agree with them, but getting angry and combative isn't the appropriate response. In fact, it may be time to look in a mirror to see if there are any quackers.

 

I don't think that there were an intent to gang up on the original poster. A bunch of individuals gave their opinion and they all happened to agree. A rare thing on the internet, especially when people are liberated by anonymity from the constraints of social desirability bias. Societal pressures to conform aren't as prevalent in an online format so the motivation to cow tow to "The Mob" is small, if there is any at all.

 

Anyway, if a user has a genuine concern and isn't just after validation for their frustrations then I think there is plenty of opportunity for assistance among this group. I've never seen a polite well-framed question be ill-received here.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Atropos3

[+wimseyguy]

I like the way ^this guy^ writes and thinks. I hope he sticks around.

[+tlap]

I think most people post that type of rant because they are looking for support or commiseration. They have already lost the official battle. When a bunch of people who have nothing invested in the outcome post their support of the other side, the ranter is made to feel even worse.

 

The best thing to do with threads like that--be sympathetic. Don't pretend to agree, but do have a bit of empathy. I think it's better to be kind than to be righteous. And it's never wrong to be silent.

Edited January 19, 2010 by tlap

[+ReadyOrNot]

This is an online geocaching forum, not a counseling session. If you show up here with a chip on your shoulder, then be prepared for the wave. Do something or say something stupid, be prepared for the wave. Groundspeak gets their share as well. Heck, just look at the beating they've taken because of their ill conceived update. It certainly goes both ways and is not as 1-sided as the op makes it seem.

[+va griz]

I think the biggest factor in the tone of the responces is the attitude of the first post. I remember one thread that was going along about like you described. The OP said "I came here for feedback, not critisizm". It was clear he meant he wanted validation, not disagreement. And that is the issue in those situations. From their perspective, there is simply no acceptable way to disagree with them. So that sort of attitude steers the thread into conflict from the start.

 

This thread in contrast, is a good example of a better way to approach an issue. Bravo.

[Clan Riffster]

Entering a forum wearing a chip on your shoulder is the dress code of an idiot.

Idiots should not be pampered or coddled.

 

The first thread you mentioned started off as a rant, directed at folks who did no harm.

The poster was treated more than fairly considering his opening salvo.

He was even treated decently after his continued vitriol.

 

So... what's the problem?

[+bflentje]

I may disagree with the OP's point. I even think I disagree about the use of the word mob... though I think he is onto something with the idea. A hundred (ok, dozens) responses all from people saying the same thing regarding the terms was a little much. It wasn't like someone asked what your favorite color is. I mean, the first dozen responses defining solicitation were enough.

[+Castle Mischief]

I may disagree with the OP's point. I even think I disagree about the use of the word mob... though I think he is onto something with the idea. A hundred (ok, dozens) responses all from people saying the same thing regarding the terms was a little much. It wasn't like someone asked what your favorite color is. I mean, the first dozen responses defining solicitation were enough.

 

I get your point- I tend to cringe when a question is answered the exact same way multiple times in a row, but in the case of the mentioned thread the OP rejected the answers he was given and was critical to the people answering him. In that particular thread it felt more like the subsequent posters giving similar answers were merely supporting the opinion of those that had posted before them because the OP had dismissed the initial responses.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+9Key]

I PM'ed Moose Mob after he locked the thread that was started after mtn-man had locked a thread where a cacher complained that Groundspeak was treating his cache unfairly for some reason. I told him that after the cooling off period he imposed I intended to start a thread to discuss the guideline in question in the original thread. While I agree that the OP needed to change his cache page, I could see how this was not clear cut. There are several things you can ask people to do on your cache pages. For an event, you can even ask for donations to help defray costs. However, given what has happened in the forum in the interim time I feel like discussing a different topic. This is the way people respond to threads started by someone who is angry at a reviewer or Groundspeak.

 

The original thread last week concerned a request from Groundspeak to the OP to change some wording on his cache page. It wasn't even clear which guideline was the issue. The email from Groundspeak referred to a TOU violation. The discussion in the forum dealt with the No Solicit guidelines. No wonder the OP was confused about what was being asked. Most of the responses failed to detect the confusion here, feeling the ofending phrase on the cache page was so obviously in violation of something that the the OP should simply comply with Groundspeak's request and remove it. The OP got a little testy and began using foul language and attacks on those posting to the thread. Instead of getting the chance to discuss the real issue with the cache page we got a locked thread. An attempt to start an new thread to discuss the issue was doing a bit better, however Moose Mob thought it moving in the direction of name calling as well. I'll admit that I did not help when I used the term "forum mob" in one of my posts.

 

Little did I know that during the cooling off period we would see numerous threads started (and some of them locked) because cacher owners were angry at Groundspeak for changing the formatting of the website and breaking the way their cache pages look.

 

It seems that many threads are started by someone who is angry at someone. Either a reviewer has unfairly applied a guideline to their cache or Groundspeak isn't listening to the needs of the community. Some of the forum regulars have seen these threads so often that they respond in an automatic way. Perhaps without realizing this, there often seems to be a mob response ganging up on the person who posted in anger or frustration. The responses often sound as if the reviewers are perfect, that Groundspeak never makes mistakes, that all is good. To the person who started the thread, this response comes across as not understanding their complaint and not being helpful in trying to find a resolution. The OPs of these thread become defensive. They may start making comments questioning other people's intelligence or comprehension ability. Inappropriate language is sometimes used in anger and frustration. The threads get locked and we loose the chance to discuss the real issues.

 

There is usually some good reason for someone to feel strongly enough to post in the forums. If they didn't understand the guidelines or the guidelines appear to have been arbitrarily applied to them, it is because the guidelines or the rationale for them aren't clear (or they found a grandfathered example from before the guideline was adopted). If someone spent hours trying to make their cache page look nice and a change to the website breaks their HTML, it understandable for them to expect a decent explanation of the rationale for the the change and perhaps a little heads-up so they can prepare for it.

 

Instead of responses that come across as unsympathetic, what I would like to see is a considered discussion of what the guideline really means and why the cache owner should change the cache page. Take the time to see their point of view and offer suggestions of ways to accomplish what they are trying to do within the guidelines. In the case of a website change, start a discussion of what Groundspeak's goals are in making changes or a discussion of how to write Greasemonkey scripts to customize the look and feel of the website the way you want it. Sometimes we get these discussion and it's then that these forums rise to their potential. Other times we get shouting matches, name calling, and put downs. This is my suggestion. The next time someone comes and starts a thread all angry and mad, take the time to respond "I understand your point, Groundspeak or the reviewer could have been clearer about their reasons for doing whatever they did. Here's why I think they did it ... And here's what you can do to fix it ..." Clearly some people will not want to hear what they can do to fix it as they feel they have done everything right and now someone has gotten in the way. We may not be able to reach the people who just come on the forums to vent. But sometimes someone will calm down and begin to think rationally and we can be there to help find solutions when they are ready to look for them. And later others with similar questions can learn from these threads. Sure they won't go down in history with the Ringbones or the Geocaching hates chinldren threads, but on the other hand it might just improve the reputation that the forums are getting among the geocachers who mostly avoid them now.

This gave me tired head. Can somone sum up?

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I PM'ed Moose Mob after he locked the thread that was started after mtn-man had locked a thread where a cacher complained that Groundspeak was treating his cache unfairly for some reason. I told him that after the cooling off period he imposed I intended to start a thread to discuss the guideline in question in the original thread. While I agree that the OP needed to change his cache page, I could see how this was not clear cut. There are several things you can ask people to do on your cache pages. For an event, you can even ask for donations to help defray costs. However, given what has happened in the forum in the interim time I feel like discussing a different topic. This is the way people respond to threads started by someone who is angry at a reviewer or Groundspeak.

 

The original thread last week concerned a request from Groundspeak to the OP to change some wording on his cache page. It wasn't even clear which guideline was the issue. The email from Groundspeak referred to a TOU violation. The discussion in the forum dealt with the No Solicit guidelines. No wonder the OP was confused about what was being asked. Most of the responses failed to detect the confusion here, feeling the ofending phrase on the cache page was so obviously in violation of something that the the OP should simply comply with Groundspeak's request and remove it. The OP got a little testy and began using foul language and attacks on those posting to the thread. Instead of getting the chance to discuss the real issue with the cache page we got a locked thread. An attempt to start an new thread to discuss the issue was doing a bit better, however Moose Mob thought it moving in the direction of name calling as well. I'll admit that I did not help when I used the term "forum mob" in one of my posts.

 

Little did I know that during the cooling off period we would see numerous threads started (and some of them locked) because cacher owners were angry at Groundspeak for changing the formatting of the website and breaking the way their cache pages look.

 

It seems that many threads are started by someone who is angry at someone. Either a reviewer has unfairly applied a guideline to their cache or Groundspeak isn't listening to the needs of the community. Some of the forum regulars have seen these threads so often that they respond in an automatic way. Perhaps without realizing this, there often seems to be a mob response ganging up on the person who posted in anger or frustration. The responses often sound as if the reviewers are perfect, that Groundspeak never makes mistakes, that all is good. To the person who started the thread, this response comes across as not understanding their complaint and not being helpful in trying to find a resolution. The OPs of these thread become defensive. They may start making comments questioning other people's intelligence or comprehension ability. Inappropriate language is sometimes used in anger and frustration. The threads get locked and we loose the chance to discuss the real issues.

 

There is usually some good reason for someone to feel strongly enough to post in the forums. If they didn't understand the guidelines or the guidelines appear to have been arbitrarily applied to them, it is because the guidelines or the rationale for them aren't clear (or they found a grandfathered example from before the guideline was adopted). If someone spent hours trying to make their cache page look nice and a change to the website breaks their HTML, it understandable for them to expect a decent explanation of the rationale for the the change and perhaps a little heads-up so they can prepare for it.

 

Instead of responses that come across as unsympathetic, what I would like to see is a considered discussion of what the guideline really means and why the cache owner should change the cache page. Take the time to see their point of view and offer suggestions of ways to accomplish what they are trying to do within the guidelines. In the case of a website change, start a discussion of what Groundspeak's goals are in making changes or a discussion of how to write Greasemonkey scripts to customize the look and feel of the website the way you want it. Sometimes we get these discussion and it's then that these forums rise to their potential. Other times we get shouting matches, name calling, and put downs. This is my suggestion. The next time someone comes and starts a thread all angry and mad, take the time to respond "I understand your point, Groundspeak or the reviewer could have been clearer about their reasons for doing whatever they did. Here's why I think they did it ... And here's what you can do to fix it ..." Clearly some people will not want to hear what they can do to fix it as they feel they have done everything right and now someone has gotten in the way. We may not be able to reach the people who just come on the forums to vent. But sometimes someone will calm down and begin to think rationally and we can be there to help find solutions when they are ready to look for them. And later others with similar questions can learn from these threads. Sure they won't go down in history with the Ringbones or the Geocaching hates chinldren threads, but on the other hand it might just improve the reputation that the forums are getting among the geocachers who mostly avoid them now.

This gave me tired head. Can somone sum up?

Mr T was to late to rant in the Original Thread so he is trying to dig the dead horse up so he can beat it some more.

[+Castle Mischief]

...a reviewer has unfairly applied a guideline to their cache...

 

Exactly when did this happen?

[+mtn-man]

...a reviewer has unfairly applied a guideline to their cache...

 

Exactly when did this happen?

He is talking in general terms. I've made mistakes and have done that, one I can think of when I did not understand the guideline properly. We are human.

[Clan Riffster]

We are human.

Puppy Monsters excepted, of course.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

DO NOT BE MAD . . . go geocaching!

 

Thought I have never had my comments here closed . . . simularly, I have had reviewers refuse to allow my caches, archive my caches, sidedline my caches and send me notes that directed my making changes to have a cache approved . . . I can choose to follow their direction or not (I usually do).

 

Herre it is just a thought/comment and in the field, it is just a cache - my ego, rights, freedom and family are not involved . . . just a thought or a cache! Besides, reviewers here on the site and in the field they have a thankless volunteer job and I appreciate what they do for the benefit of the greater number of players.

 

My own personal opinion is that the game is played in the field where the caches are hidden with the exception being online to d/l those you will seek and log those where you were successful. Anything else is peripheral and can be injurious to the joy of yourself and others.

 

Being at this site, airing complaints and griping are counter-productive and injurious to the game, the site and the joy of others for the slight righteous (or self-righteous) gain of a few.

 

Finally, my own personal opinion is that the longer the argument and the more verbage that is employed is an indication that the speaker is coming from the contrary (wrong) position and is simply trying to sell his idea. A fair and honest idea is simply presented and not confused with a lot of rhetoric.

Edited January 19, 2010 by GRANPA ALEX

[+bittsen]

I don't know about the rest of you but I won't let someone walk in my house during my Thanksgiving dinner and read me the riot act because my dog peed on their roses. I might listen to them if they are polite and get straight to the point but if they get mad because I'm not going to get up from my plate to go swat my dog, I am going to tell them to get out of my house. If they won't, I will show them the door. If all the neighbors show up because he went out to get a gang together, I will lock my door.

 

I suspect that that's what Groundspeak does. Hence, locked threads.

[GOF and Bacall]

Toz, I am going to respond to you before I read the rest of the replies.

 

Quite often when one of these angry users start a thread the first half dozen replies, give or take, are constructive. At the very least they lay a basis for continued conversation. Unfortunately these angry OPs get all bent out of shape when everyone doesn't jump on their bandwagon. The angrier, and more defensive they get the less others are inclined to listen to them. It is not the forum regulars fault when these people come here with a chip on their shoulder.

 

If someone comes in here looking for an honest answer they almost always get it. It is almost always up to the OP whether the thread is productive or if they just get told to take a hike.

 

As for the OP of the thread you referenced at the beginning of your post anyone that comes into any forum as bent out of shape and angry as he was should be told to come back when they have composed themselves. When he made the suggestion he did about someones wife his account should have been locked permanently.

[GOF and Bacall]

I may disagree with the OP's point. I even think I disagree about the use of the word mob... though I think he is onto something with the idea. A hundred (ok, dozens) responses all from people saying the same thing regarding the terms was a little much. It wasn't like someone asked what your favorite color is. I mean, the first dozen responses defining solicitation were enough.

 

I get your point- I tend to cringe when a question is answered the exact same way multiple times in a row, but in the case of the mentioned thread the OP rejected the answers he was given and was critical to the people answering him. In that particular thread it felt more like the subsequent posters giving similar answers were merely supporting the opinion of those that had posted before them because the OP had dismissed the initial responses.

 

The OP in that thread was not critical to the people answering him. He was down right nasty. I am surprised he was treated as well as he was.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I might be new to Geocaching, but I am not new to forum culture. I can tell you that how your post is received and the types of responses you get has EVERYTHING to do with the tone of your original post, how you frame your "questions" and how you respond to people that disagree with you.

 

I don't think that there were an intent to gang up on the original poster. A bunch of individuals gave their opinion and they all happened to agree. A rare thing on the internet, especially when people are liberated by anonymity from the constraints of social desirability bias. Societal pressures to conform aren't as prevalent in an online format so the motivation to cow tow to "The Mob" is small, if there is any at all.

 

 

I am also not new to internet forums (a Usenet user since 1984) and see a parallel with what someone describe as the "forum mob" and a common practice on usenet forums had was generall considered bad form.

 

In the context of Usenet "a bunch of individuals expressing a common opinion to a post becomes what is known as a "pile-on" or a series of "me too" posts. This forum, as is the case with usenet groups supports the notion of threads. Whether there are followups to the OP, or to a specific post in the thread, after the third or fourth response which essentially expresses the same opinion, it becomes, basically a "pile-on". I've seen a lot of threads here where there was an adequate response or two after a couple of responses, but the thread went on and in with numerous followups essentially saying the same thing. Someone new to the forums will probably get the point after a couple of responses (granted, some never do) if they've posted something that many geocachers may find objectionable. After 5-6 responses, from different people essentially saying the same thing, someone new to the forums without the requisite thick skin is going to get turned off by the geocaching community (that participates in these forums) pretty fast.

 

On useset, there is a recommended practice that one should read all response to a thread before responding. If someone else has essentially already written a similar response, don't respond unless there is something useful to add to the discussion.

[+Col. Flagg]

I might be new to Geocaching, but I am not new to forum culture. I can tell you that how your post is received and the types of responses you get has EVERYTHING to do with the tone of your original post, how you frame your "questions" and how you respond to people that disagree with you.

 

I don't think that there were an intent to gang up on the original poster. A bunch of individuals gave their opinion and they all happened to agree. A rare thing on the internet, especially when people are liberated by anonymity from the constraints of social desirability bias. Societal pressures to conform aren't as prevalent in an online format so the motivation to cow tow to "The Mob" is small, if there is any at all.

 

 

I am also not new to internet forums (a Usenet user since 1984) and see a parallel with what someone describe as the "forum mob" and a common practice on usenet forums had was generall considered bad form.

 

In the context of Usenet "a bunch of individuals expressing a common opinion to a post becomes what is known as a "pile-on" or a series of "me too" posts. This forum, as is the case with usenet groups supports the notion of threads. Whether there are followups to the OP, or to a specific post in the thread, after the third or fourth response which essentially expresses the same opinion, it becomes, basically a "pile-on". I've seen a lot of threads here where there was an adequate response or two after a couple of responses, but the thread went on and in with numerous followups essentially saying the same thing. Someone new to the forums will probably get the point after a couple of responses (granted, some never do) if they've posted something that many geocachers may find objectionable. After 5-6 responses, from different people essentially saying the same thing, someone new to the forums without the requisite thick skin is going to get turned off by the geocaching community (that participates in these forums) pretty fast.

 

On useset, there is a recommended practice that one should read all response to a thread before responding. If someone else has essentially already written a similar response, don't respond unless there is something useful to add to the discussion.

 

The same should apply to the OP. He kept going on about the same thing and getting quite upset that no one else agreed with him. Obviously after all those opposing post the OP still didn't get it.

 

I really don't see a problem with people joining in and saying I agree/I disagree, it gives people a sense of what the forum community as a whole thinks, since we don't have polls in the forum.

[+thedeadpirate]

Sometimes we receive correspondence that we don't agree with or fully understand.

 

Rather than taking a minute to comprehend the situation, we sometimes post things too quickly. It is always a good idea to take a few breaths and calm down prior to posting.

 

It's rarely a good idea to post when in a cranky mood.

 

When one does this, he or she should be willing to accept criticism and correction without lashing out at those offering that criticism or correction. I just experienced this a few days ago. It can be quite humbling.

 

When 95% of the responses to a question point towards the fact that you are incorrect, why you are incorrect, and/or ways in which to correct your error, you may want to take time to take that to heart. Rarely are so many in complete agreement here or anywhere else on the internet.

 

If you find yourself about to lash out in ways you know are not appropriate, then walk away for a while. Wait until you are able to calmly enter the discussion before you post. You and everyone else will be the better for it.

[+L0ne.R]

I am also not new to internet forums (a Usenet user since 1984) and see a parallel with what someone describe as the "forum mob" and a common practice on usenet forums had was generall considered bad form.

 

In the context of Usenet "a bunch of individuals expressing a common opinion to a post becomes what is known as a "pile-on" or a series of "me too" posts. This forum, as is the case with usenet groups supports the notion of threads. Whether there are followups to the OP, or to a specific post in the thread, after the third or fourth response which essentially expresses the same opinion, it becomes, basically a "pile-on". I've seen a lot of threads here where there was an adequate response or two after a couple of responses, but the thread went on and in with numerous followups essentially saying the same thing. Someone new to the forums will probably get the point after a couple of responses (granted, some never do) if they've posted something that many geocachers may find objectionable. After 5-6 responses, from different people essentially saying the same thing, someone new to the forums without the requisite thick skin is going to get turned off by the geocaching community (that participates in these forums) pretty fast.

 

On useset, there is a recommended practice that one should read all response to a thread before responding. If someone else has essentially already written a similar response, don't respond unless there is something useful to add to the discussion.

 

I really don't see a problem with people joining in and saying I agree/I disagree, it gives people a sense of what the forum community as a whole thinks, since we don't have polls in the forum.

 

I agree. I'd like to see "reaction" buttons (e.g. agree, disagree, interesting, educational, funny), like they have on blogger.com - it could cut down on the 'me too' comments and allow those who don't have much to say an opportunity to weigh-in on the discussion.

[+cycler48]

Sometimes we receive correspondence that we don't agree with or fully understand.

 

Rather than taking a minute to comprehend the situation, we sometimes post things too quickly. It is always a good idea to take a few breaths and calm down prior to posting.

 

It's rarely a good idea to post when in a cranky mood.

 

When one does this, he or she should be willing to accept criticism and correction without lashing out at those offering that criticism or correction. I just experienced this a few days ago. It can be quite humbling.

 

When 95% of the responses to a question point towards the fact that you are incorrect, why you are incorrect, and/or ways in which to correct your error, you may want to take time to take that to heart. Rarely are so many in complete agreement here or anywhere else on the internet.

 

If you find yourself about to lash out in ways you know are not appropriate, then walk away for a while. Wait until you are able to calmly enter the discussion before you post. You and everyone else will be the better for it.

 

Good advice and worth following.

[+tozainamboku]

I'll have to agree with those that say when someone post in anger and a sense of entitlement, they get a sharper response. When they dismiss initial comments as not to their liking, they invite people to "pile on". On the other hand, if they come looking for explaination and workarounds, they will likely be met with more helpful ideas and an exchange can take place. I don't know whether I am more frustrated that so many complaint are made by angry people or with the lack of anyone (other than an occasional friend of the OP) who will look at the issues from the OPs side. Most always there is something to discuss. These issues are rarely as black and white as some would make them. Does a angry post make you decide that the issue is black and white and the OP is therefore always wrong?

 

Looks like the latest effort is to ridicule people who post all angry that their 3rd party mobile phone app stopped working because of the latest changes to the website. The mods are censoring their posts for discussing "unapproved apps" and forum regulars are in no mood to show any sympathy for someone who is "screen scrapping" the website.

 

First of all most of the people using these applications are not aware that they screen scrape or otherwise violate the TOU. Even I am not sure how these applications are doing anymore than all those Greasemonkey scripts that get all the praise from the regulars. In both case they use HTTP to get a page of data from the website and then, on the client device, parse and reformat the data to present it to the user. Sure I could see a problem with an app that queries a Geocaching.com page every 10 seconds to pop up notifications of new caches. But if I am somewhere and an my app asks for the page with the nearest caches to my coordinates, what is wrong with hitting the site and displaying a list. And when the user clicks the name of a cache, to hit that page and show the description, hint, and some logs? Forgive me if I don't understand what applications are doing. My impression is that they are not hitting the geocaching.com site any harder than a Greasemonkey script would. The moderators want to censor these threads, particular when the OP says they are angry that Groundspeak broke these apps by changing the website or if they are more techinially savy, they get angry with Groundspeak for not supporting these third party apps with an official API. And because they people appear to be angry, most forum regulars won't even question why Groundspeak or the moderators take the stand they do. If the OP posted in anger they must be wrong. Any app that isn't approved by Groundspeak is therefore an evil screen scraper whose name cannot be used in the forums. So we never get to discuss just what Groundspeak sees as the threat from these applications, and just how they decide that discussing Greasemonkey scripts in the forum is OK but doing the same thing with a mobile app is forbidden.

[+brslk]

Sometimes we receive correspondence that we don't agree with or fully understand.

 

Rather than taking a minute to comprehend the situation, we sometimes post things too quickly. It is always a good idea to take a few breaths and calm down prior to posting.

 

It's rarely a good idea to post when in a cranky mood.

 

When one does this, he or she should be willing to accept criticism and correction without lashing out at those offering that criticism or correction. I just experienced this a few days ago. It can be quite humbling.

 

When 95% of the responses to a question point towards the fact that you are incorrect, why you are incorrect, and/or ways in which to correct your error, you may want to take time to take that to heart. Rarely are so many in complete agreement here or anywhere else on the internet.

 

If you find yourself about to lash out in ways you know are not appropriate, then walk away for a while. Wait until you are able to calmly enter the discussion before you post. You and everyone else will be the better for it.

 

Good advice and worth following.

 

Although I have been posting on forums for oh.... 12 years give or take, I sometimes forget to relax and take a breath before posting.

 

It is indeed good advice.

 

It does seem that the older I get, the easier it is to follow that advice.

 

(not to say I will not be a stupid azz in the future) but I shall do my best.

[jholly]

I'll have to agree with those that say when someone post in anger and a sense of entitlement, they get a sharper response. When they dismiss initial comments as not to their liking, they invite people to "pile on". On the other hand, if they come looking for explaination and workarounds, they will likely be met with more helpful ideas and an exchange can take place. I don't know whether I am more frustrated that so many complaint are made by angry people or with the lack of anyone (other than an occasional friend of the OP) who will look at the issues from the OPs side. Most always there is something to discuss. These issues are rarely as black and white as some would make them. Does a angry post make you decide that the issue is black and white and the OP is therefore always wrong?

 

Looks like the latest effort is to ridicule people who post all angry that their 3rd party mobile phone app stopped working because of the latest changes to the website. The mods are censoring their posts for discussing "unapproved apps" and forum regulars are in no mood to show any sympathy for someone who is "screen scrapping" the website.

 

First of all most of the people using these applications are not aware that they screen scrape or otherwise violate the TOU. Even I am not sure how these applications are doing anymore than all those Greasemonkey scripts that get all the praise from the regulars. In both case they use HTTP to get a page of data from the website and then, on the client device, parse and reformat the data to present it to the user. Sure I could see a problem with an app that queries a Geocaching.com page every 10 seconds to pop up notifications of new caches. But if I am somewhere and an my app asks for the page with the nearest caches to my coordinates, what is wrong with hitting the site and displaying a list. And when the user clicks the name of a cache, to hit that page and show the description, hint, and some logs? Forgive me if I don't understand what applications are doing. My impression is that they are not hitting the geocaching.com site any harder than a Greasemonkey script would. The moderators want to censor these threads, particular when the OP says they are angry that Groundspeak broke these apps by changing the website or if they are more techinially savy, they get angry with Groundspeak for not supporting these third party apps with an official API. And because they people appear to be angry, most forum regulars won't even question why Groundspeak or the moderators take the stand they do. If the OP posted in anger they must be wrong. Any app that isn't approved by Groundspeak is therefore an evil screen scraper whose name cannot be used in the forums. So we never get to discuss just what Groundspeak sees as the threat from these applications, and just how they decide that discussing Greasemonkey scripts in the forum is OK but doing the same thing with a mobile app is forbidden.

 

The problem with screen scrapers is many times they have to login for each and every page they scrape. That is different than how a browser works. It is the constant login that causes server loads. Greasemonkey scripts are local to the browser and affect how the browser displays the page. The servers are not aware of the greasemonkey scripts nor do they affect how the data is requested from the servers.

 

The application that must not be mentioned is a screen scraper. By the terms of use that is not allowed. Perhaps the folks using this application were not aware of this activity. But the fact remains that the application that must not be mentioned violates the terms of use. Why should GS and the moderators tolerate a discussion of an application that blatantly violates the terms of use? GS has admitted that there is an API and they also have said they will not provide a public API. No reason given, but I guess I can accept that they do not need to provide a reason.

 

But I think one question needs to be asked and explored. Did the author of the application that can't be mentioned ever have dialog with GS about a way of accomplishing the activity that will minimize server load? Did he discuss ways that he could legally implement his applicaton? Or did he decide to go ahead and implement without discussing the implications with GS? I think this is at the heart of the issues with this one application. The fact that GS broke the application and the fact that discussion of application is not allowed has no bearing on the real questions.

[+Castle Mischief]

Finally, my own personal opinion is that the longer the argument and the more verbage that is employed is an indication that the speaker is coming from the contrary (wrong) position and is simply trying to sell his idea. A fair and honest idea is simply presented and not confused with a lot of rhetoric.

 

In Toz's defense, he is pretty consistently verbose.

 

(Also, "verbage" is a derogatory play on the word verbiage. Not sure if you meant to use it or not. Not saying that you shouldn't if that was your opinion, just pointing that out.)

[+GeoRVers]

Could all of you pitch in a few hundred dollars to buy me a new set of reading glasses? Please send donations to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500

 

I read the OP you refer to, about the request for donations in his cache. I agree with the reviewer, Groundspeak, and everyone else that thought it was a simple matter, NO SOLICITING.

 

I also think you are a great writer, but I usually pass right by long post that have multiple topics, or combine multiple post, such as this one. I like to research the facts before I jump in - the donation seeker lived in a house worth some $190k, $1400 and some $ in taxes paid last year, owned by Nancy (probably his mom). I could go on and give you his name, address and a lot of other info... but even with all that, I still didn't gather enough information to reply to his OP.

 

Why did I chose to reply to this post? I don't know... maybe I just don't like post that suggest that I shouldn't reply to a post without giving it some thought and showing a little compassion.

 

 

 

On edit: Removed the POLITICAL reference (sic)... so please don't think you're sending ME donations if you really mail a check to the above address

Edited January 20, 2010 by GeoRVers

[+sbell111]

I may disagree with the OP's point. I even think I disagree about the use of the word mob... though I think he is onto something with the idea. A hundred (ok, dozens) responses all from people saying the same thing regarding the terms was a little much. It wasn't like someone asked what your favorite color is. I mean, the first dozen responses defining solicitation were enough.

 

I get your point- I tend to cringe when a question is answered the exact same way multiple times in a row, but in the case of the mentioned thread the OP rejected the answers he was given and was critical to the people answering him. In that particular thread it felt more like the subsequent posters giving similar answers were merely supporting the opinion of those that had posted before them because the OP had dismissed the initial responses.

 

The OP in that thread was not critical to the people answering him. He was down right nasty. I am surprised he was treated as well as he was.

It's not that big of a mystery. For the most part, those of us who participate in this forum (and in that thread) enjoy these forums and are familiar with the forum guidelines. When n3rpz/TheWeatherWarrior got nasty, everyone immediately noted that he not only stepped over the line, he drove over the line and did donuts on the moderators' lawns. There was no reason to return in kind because 1) that would put the responders at risk of being dinged for guidelines violations and 2) everyone could see his time out coming from a mile away.

[+Castle Mischief]

Could all of you pitch in a few hundred dollars to buy me a new set of reading glasses? Please send donations to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500

 

I'm not really Barack, but send donations if you want... he'll gladly spend your money

 

The Political Discussion forum is down the hall and to the right.

[+bflentje]

I may disagree with the OP's point. I even think I disagree about the use of the word mob... though I think he is onto something with the idea. A hundred (ok, dozens) responses all from people saying the same thing regarding the terms was a little much. It wasn't like someone asked what your favorite color is. I mean, the first dozen responses defining solicitation were enough.

 

I get your point- I tend to cringe when a question is answered the exact same way multiple times in a row, but in the case of the mentioned thread the OP rejected the answers he was given and was critical to the people answering him. In that particular thread it felt more like the subsequent posters giving similar answers were merely supporting the opinion of those that had posted before them because the OP had dismissed the initial responses.

 

I suppose you're on to something, that is true. But threads like that are still hard to watch.

[knowschad]

This gave me tired head. Can somone sum up?

Be nice. Rise above the fray. Follow the Golden Rule. Be a better listener. Stuff like that.

[+Castle Mischief]

This gave me tired head. Can somone sum up?

Be nice. Rise above the fray. Follow the Golden Rule. Be a better listener. Stuff like that.

 

Namaste.