Reviewer Forum

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

When Reviewers attend events they are inundated with questions because many of us desire an answer from someone who can give it definitively.

 

I know that when I ask a question I don't want an opinion, as much as I respect many of your opinions and even trust a few, I want a real answer from someone qualified to give it, and once that answer has been given any debate about it is just noise. That answer, if not already addressed, could then be posted to the FAQ.

 

What would you think about asking Groundspeak to implement a Reviewer Answer Forum where 'official' answers could be posted? The Geocaching Topics and Getting Started forums are great, but it's hard to know when a question related to the Guidelines or official Groundspeak position on a topic has been correctly answered.

 

As it is a question is asked and many of us may weigh in with *our* answers (opinions), but how does the OP know which answer is correct, and, once it has been answered correctly the remaining (sometimes quite numerous and conflicting) replies and debate just fog the issue. Even when a Reviewer does weigh in on a question in the existing forums their answer is often lost in the fog. I'm certainly all for debate and discussion but really most questions have one answer as far as this site is concerned; the Groundspeak one, and that's the answer that I am looking for.

 

I would love to see a forum where a question is asked, a Reviewer or Lackey posts the Groundspeak-blessed answer and closes the thread... there's no need for 20 people who don't have the real answer to weigh in with their opinion or for a debate to ensue - the answer is the answer. We can debate the answer in the Geocaching Topics thread but would know that the 'official' answer was given in the Reviewer Answer Forum.

[+buttaskotch]

I think this is the most constructive post I have seen in a long time!!!!

I vote yes, yes, yes! And pin the thread for all to see!

[knowschad]

You've got my vote!

[+roziecakes]

I think this is an AWESOME idea. I love it!

[+DeepButi]

Love it.

 

But ... where did you get the idea that an "official" answer does exist?

[+Walts Hunting]

Since I am always the one to throw the wet blanket I would point out things that can happen.

 

A person describes a cache situation here and gets an answer then submits the cache but it is slightly different (or something wasn't mentioned in the post) and it is not approved.

 

This results in a back and forth between the CO and the reviewer with a "but he said I could"

 

Continual repeating of the same question over and over (sometimes with a different answer depending on the reviewer).

 

I think reviewers do a great but they are volunteers and while they have a common set of guidelines they are all individuals and sometimes different ones will take a different view of a situation and you get (again) the but he said it was ok situation.

 

I know it sounds great but I can see many problems arising.

[+Lil Devil]

Ask 20 different reviewers what they think of something, and you'll get 20 different answers.

[knowschad]

Ask 20 different reviewers what they think of something, and you'll get 20 different answers.

Would a few reviewers mind commenting on this, please?

[+Walts Hunting]

Ask 20 different reviewers what they think of something, and you'll get 20 different answer

 

That's better than 20 lawyers which would get 28-30 different answers.

[+BulldogBlitz]

i'd rather us just continue to post the questions here in the open forum, and let the 3-4 know-it-alls duke it out over the interpretation of "placement" or "permission" or....

 

[knowschad]

i'd rather us just continue to post the questions here in the open forum, and let the 3-4 know-it-alls duke it out over the interpretation of "placement" or "permission" or....

 

There are four know-it-alls here. Not three. Not three or four. Four. Got it?

 

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Ask 20 different reviewers what they think of something, and you'll get 20 different answers.

Yes, and the only answer that counts is from YOUR Reviewer! The one responsible for publishing the OP's cache. What the Reviewer for another area says may indeed vary.

 

Obviously then asking your Reviewer directly is the best away to get an answer but I think that in most cases Reviewers are singing from the same songbook and answers unless unusual would apply across the board.

[+briansnat]

Love it.

 

But ... where did you get the idea that an "official" answer does exist?

 

That's the problem with such a forum. Often there is no "official" answer. The guidelines were purposely written to provide some flexibility and the reviewers are encouraged to use their own discretion. You can ask 2 reviewers a question and get 2 different answers.

 

Even if we were given an "official" answer from the lily pad in such a forum, it would usually pertain to specific situation and not necessarily apply to similar ones.

 

The best "official answer" comes from the reviewer who will be reviewing your cache.

Edited August 2, 2010 by briansnat

[+briansnat]

Ask 20 different reviewers what they think of something, and you'll get 20 different answers.

Would a few reviewers mind commenting on this, please?

 

I think that is a gross exaggeration. If you ask 20 reviewers you'll get 18 different answers.

[+tozainamboku]

I personally like getting answers from ex-reviewers. Especially from ones that didn't know you're supposed to sign the log.

[+t4e]

 

That's the problem with such a forum. Often there is no "official" answer. The guidelines were purposely written to provide some flexibility and the reviewers are encouraged to use their own discretion. You can ask 2 reviewers a question and get 2 different answers.

 

The best "official answer" comes from the reviewer who will be reviewing your cache.

 

so if i happen to have a reviewer with "strong" opinions on certain subjects i'm out of luck eh?

 

while i agree to giving reviewers flexibility it does create some frustration when you find a cache in Lapland and want to create the same thing on your neck of the woods and its refused or archived later on, and has nothing to do with land/park rules of the respective regions, just an urban hide

 

also the said "flexibility" encourages personal points of view rather than generally agreed opinions

Edited August 2, 2010 by t4e

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I personally like getting answers from ex-reviewers. Especially from ones that didn't know you're supposed to sign the log.

Yeah, that's a problem. I like to post answers my opinions but I try to make sure that the reader knows it is just that - my personal opinion and only that!

 

I used to have a sig line that said something to the effect of "This is my personal opinion, I am not affiliated with Groundspeak in any way" but I was asked to remove it.

 

As time goes by less and less folks know that I was once a Reviewer (unless folks bring it up I don't) and thus the problem is slowly working itself out.

 

However, if y'all would just do things my way we wouldn't have any problem!

[Keystone]

Ask 20 different reviewers what they think of something, and you'll get 20 different answers.

No you won't.

 

[+Castle Mischief]

I used to have a sig line that said something to the effect of "This is my personal opinion, I am not affiliated with Groundspeak in any way" but I was asked to remove it.

 

Were you asked to remove it while you were still a reviewer or afterward?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I used to have a sig line that said something to the effect of "This is my personal opinion, I am not affiliated with Groundspeak in any way" but I was asked to remove it.

 

Were you asked to remove it while you were still a reviewer or afterward?

A year or so after I got myself fired.

[+briansnat]

 

That's the problem with such a forum. Often there is no "official" answer. The guidelines were purposely written to provide some flexibility and the reviewers are encouraged to use their own discretion. You can ask 2 reviewers a question and get 2 different answers.

 

The best "official answer" comes from the reviewer who will be reviewing your cache.

 

so if i happen to have a reviewer with "strong" opinions on certain subjects i'm out of luck eh?

 

while i agree to giving reviewers flexibility it does create some frustration when you find a cache in Lapland and want to create the same thing on your neck of the woods and its refused or archived later on, and has nothing to do with land/park rules of the respective regions, just an urban hide

 

also the said "flexibility" encourages personal points of view rather than generally agreed opinions

 

That's why there is an appeals process. Reviewer decisions can and have been reversed through it

[Clan Riffster]

While I think it is an interesting idea, I'm not sure how well it would work in application. We cachers start with a set of guidelines, which often lead us to vastly different conclusions regarding what is acceptable and what is not. The guidelines are pretty darn ambiguous, lending themselves to interpretation in many areas. With a few possible exceptions, the Reviewers are just as human as we are, and as we've seen time and time again, are subject to applying their own interpretations to the guidelines.

 

While it's true that "The only answer that matters is the one from your local Reviewer", this is a truth that is best applied at a local level. If a cacher from one locale posts a question, and a Reviewer from far away answers, then a Reviewer local to the cacher posts a different opinion, this could lead to open debate amongst the Reviewers. Not a good thing. The supplicants should never see the Gods arguing.

 

Groundspeak already has a system in place whereby a cacher can acquire answers from their local Reviewers.

 

Just my $0.02

[+Castle Mischief]

I used to have a sig line that said something to the effect of "This is my personal opinion, I am not affiliated with Groundspeak in any way" but I was asked to remove it.

 

Were you asked to remove it while you were still a reviewer or afterward?

A year or so after I got myself fired.

 

Wow. That's simply mystifying.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

While I think it is an interesting idea, I'm not sure how well it would work in application. We cachers start with a set of guidelines, which often lead us to vastly different conclusions regarding what is acceptable and what is not. The guidelines are pretty darn ambiguous, lending themselves to interpretation in many areas. With a few possible exceptions, the Reviewers are just as human as we are, and as we've seen time and time again, are subject to applying their own interpretations to the guidelines.

 

While it's true that "The only answer that matters is the one from your local Reviewer", this is a truth that is best applied at a local level. If a cacher from one locale posts a question, and a Reviewer from far away answers, then a Reviewer local to the cacher posts a different opinion, this could lead to open debate amongst the Reviewers. Not a good thing. The supplicants should never see the Gods arguing.

 

Groundspeak already has a system in place whereby a cacher can acquire answers from their local Reviewers.

 

Just my $0.02

True, but you're in here about as much as I am, seeing the same questions I do - wouldn't you agree that most questions have but one real answer that applies to everyone?

 

Sure there are variations and exceptions, but should we let the desire for perfect preclude good?

[+DragonsWest]

While I think it's a neat and worthwhile idea to have an "Ask The Reviewer" forum, I think I see a fly in the ointment - what happens when two reviewers disagree?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

While I think it's a neat and worthwhile idea to have an "Ask The Reviewer" forum, I think I see a fly in the ointment - what happens when two reviewers disagree?

It could be a new revenue stream for Groundspeak! They fight a cage match, on YouTube. I'd pay to watch and I would accept the victor's answer!

Edited August 2, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[Clan Riffster]

True, but you're in here about as much as I am, seeing the same questions I do - wouldn't you agree that most questions have but one real answer that applies to everyone?

Very true. It's my belief that the reason we see the same questions over and over is a result of folks not actually reading the information available to them from Groundspeak. As somewhat experienced cachers, we can usually find our own answers to questions just by perusing the guidelines, FAQs or knowledgebase. These sources give us the only real answer that matters: The one from The Lily Pad.

 

Would you agree that, on occasion, Reviewer A might have a different answer to a question than Reviewer B? By creating a forum just for Reviewer answers, Groundspeak would be creating a slippery slope that could cast the Reviewing process in a negative light. As we each have the capability to get answers from our local Reviewers to any questions we might have, I'm not sure the benefits of what you propose outweigh the potential concerns.

[Clan Riffster]

They fight a cage match, on YouTube.

It would not be a fair competition. PuppyMonster would whoop up on all comers.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

As we each have the capability to get answers from our local Reviewers to any questions we might have, I'm not sure the benefits of what you propose outweigh the potential concerns.

Me either, which is why I posted the question here for your input instead of suggesting it to GS. Feeling out the community's feelings on such things helps me verify, expand or disprove mine.

 

As for Reviewer differences I kinda like my cage match suggestion above!

[jholly]

I feel this forum would quickly become one of explaining why your regular 502 feet from the nearest micro can not be published. It is my opinion that most of the discussions on cache approval are about proximity rule violations, followed by a distance second of permission. Oh, and probably a big discussion on why virtuals should be approved.

[+narcissa]

I prefer to ask my local reviewers directly when I have a question that needs a reliable answer. The reviewers who frequently participate in this forum aren't the reviewers who will be looking at my cache pages.

[+palmetto]

The real fly in the ointment is who is gonna volunteer? this Reviewer forum would need to monitored by some reviewer(s) willing to handle it. I'm guessing the sign up line on that would be short. Really really short.

 

There are a handful of reviewers who are in the forums fairly regularly, but most of them aren't posting in reviewer capacity much.

 

Often the questions that are asked here will be very situationally dependant. IE, you'd need a cache page to look at - so now you've got the "forum reviewer" looking at the same cache as the "local reviewer" and commenting publicly? No thanks.

[+Team Cotati]

i'd rather us just continue to post the questions here in the open forum, and let the 3-4 know-it-alls duke it out over the interpretation of "placement" or "permission" or....

 

There are four know-it-alls here. Not three. Not three or four. Four. Got it?

 

 

I'd settle for one. Got it?

[+Ike 13]

I prefer to ask my local reviewers directly when I have a question that needs a reliable answer. The reviewers who frequently participate in this forum aren't the reviewers who will be looking at my cache pages.

+1

 

In theory the idea is great. But there is already a way to get the answers people seek. Some OP's don't know that the best option is to contact the local reviewer and then GS (if there's a dispute). Most of the questions I see here are asked be people you already have an 'official' answer from their reviewer but are upset with that answer (or may want to know why).

[+DragonsWest]

I prefer to ask my local reviewers directly when I have a question that needs a reliable answer. The reviewers who frequently participate in this forum aren't the reviewers who will be looking at my cache pages.

+1

 

In theory the idea is great. But there is already a way to get the answers people seek. Some OP's don't know that the best option is to contact the local reviewer and then GS (if there's a dispute). Most of the questions I see here are asked be people you already have an 'official' answer from their reviewer but are upset with that answer (or may want to know why).

 

I have multiple reviewers in my area, but I wouldn't dream of shopping for answers among them (particularly because one of them reads these forums regularly )

 

Don't like the answer? Get over it, move on, there's always another possibility, don't get fixated on this one.

[knowschad]

You've got my vote!

In light of some of the excellent points that have been raised here, I'm going to have to subtract 1 from my vote.

 

Besides, my reviewer is a doorknob, and doesn't post here.

[+uxorious]

Reading the forums I sometimes get the distinct feeling GS does not want to weigh in on most of the disagreements and/or questions posted.

 

Many times a thread has gone on and on, with all kinds of back and forth opinions, and we hear nothing official.

 

I like your idea, but if GS liked it we probably wouldn't need it. Someone would already be posting answers under some kind of official stance.

Edited August 2, 2010 by uxorious

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Reading the forums I sometimes get the distinct feeling GS does not want to weigh in on most of the disagreements and/or questions posted.

 

I got the same feeling from the recently launched Feedback system. I started one topic that currently has "155 people like this idea" about about 130 comments but I've yet to see a response on the topic from GS.

[Nomex]

The real fly in the ointment is who is gonna volunteer? this Reviewer forum would need to monitored by some reviewer(s) willing to handle it. I'm guessing the sign up line on that would be short. Really really short.

 

There are a handful of reviewers who are in the forums fairly regularly, but most of them aren't posting in reviewer capacity much.

 

Often the questions that are asked here will be very situationally dependant. IE, you'd need a cache page to look at - so now you've got the "forum reviewer" looking at the same cache as the "local reviewer" and commenting publicly? No thanks.

 

I agree. I much prefer posting under my alter ego than my Reviewing account precisely becuase I prefer being on the same footing as everyone else. Most of the time, it's just My opinion, and nothing else.

 

And I agree, not a gig I would sign up for. Well, maybe if they paid me with chocolate

[Team Misguided]

I would love to see a forum where a question is asked, a Reviewer or Lackey posts the Groundspeak-blessed answer and closes the thread... there's no need for 20 people who don't have the real answer to weigh in with their opinion or for a debate to ensue - the answer is the answer. We can debate the answer in the Geocaching Topics thread but would know that the 'official' answer was given in the Reviewer Answer Forum.

 

This sounds quite a bit like something that is currently being handled by the Knowledge Book articles. They have a form for people to fill out if they have questions, those questions are tracked and responded to by one of the very helpful Lackeys and questions that come up on a regular basis are converted to KB articles.

[+Smurf]

When Reviewers attend events they are inundated with questions because many of us desire an answer from someone who can give it definitively.

 

I know that when I ask a question I don't want an opinion, as much as I respect many of your opinions and even trust a few, I want a real answer from someone qualified to give it, and once that answer has been given any debate about it is just noise. That answer, if not already addressed, could then be posted to the FAQ.

 

What would you think about asking Groundspeak to implement a Reviewer Answer Forum where 'official' answers could be posted? The Geocaching Topics and Getting Started forums are great, but it's hard to know when a question related to the Guidelines or official Groundspeak position on a topic has been correctly answered.

 

As it is a question is asked and many of us may weigh in with *our* answers (opinions), but how does the OP know which answer is correct, and, once it has been answered correctly the remaining (sometimes quite numerous and conflicting) replies and debate just fog the issue. Even when a Reviewer does weigh in on a question in the existing forums their answer is often lost in the fog. I'm certainly all for debate and discussion but really most questions have one answer as far as this site is concerned; the Groundspeak one, and that's the answer that I am looking for.

 

I would love to see a forum where a question is asked, a Reviewer or Lackey posts the Groundspeak-blessed answer and closes the thread... there's no need for 20 people who don't have the real answer to weigh in with their opinion or for a debate to ensue - the answer is the answer. We can debate the answer in the Geocaching Topics thread but would know that the 'official' answer was given in the Reviewer Answer Forum.

 

Surely, if you want/need a difinitive answer to a question a forum of any kind isn't the place to get it,

 

Email your reviewer directly, they will all take the time out to help out in any way they can,

OR, if you need/want an answer from Groundspeak (a Lacky if you like) ,, email contact@Groundspeak.com

 

A forum as i understand it - is a place for public discusion

[knowschad]

I would love to see a forum where a question is asked, a Reviewer or Lackey posts the Groundspeak-blessed answer and closes the thread... there's no need for 20 people who don't have the real answer to weigh in with their opinion or for a debate to ensue - the answer is the answer. We can debate the answer in the Geocaching Topics thread but would know that the 'official' answer was given in the Reviewer Answer Forum.

 

This sounds quite a bit like something that is currently being handled by the Knowledge Book articles. They have a form for people to fill out if they have questions, those questions are tracked and responded to by one of the very helpful Lackeys and questions that come up on a regular basis are converted to KB articles.

 

Aha! Thanks, I never noticed the Submit a Request link for the Knowledge Books!

[+slackpacker]

Our local reviewer started a thread on the forums of our state association's website - something akin to "ask the reviewer". Doesn't get a ton of posts, but what does get posted there is usually helpful; in short, it seems to work quite well.

 

Since 99%+ of your reviewer interaction is going to be with your local/state reviewer(s), perhaps a local/state forum is better suited for this idea -

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... Surely, if you want/need a difinitive answer to a question a forum of any kind isn't the place to get it,

 

Email your reviewer directly, they will all take the time out to help out in any way they can,

OR, if you need/want an answer from Groundspeak (a Lacky if you like) ,, email contact@Groundspeak.com

 

A forum as i understand it - is a place for public discusion

Forums are how information is shared. Sure we can ask our Reviewer, but that answer does not then get shared with the rest of the community, so more than likely another Reviewer will be asked that same question soon.

 

That prior listings do not set precedent gives Reviewers great latitude and I suppose that flexibility would be lost if answers about individual caches were published.

 

Enough folks who do speak with authority have weighed in with answers that I can see that this is not the good idea I thought it was!

 

Thanks all for your viewpoints.

 

Moderator, you can shut this one down at will.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Aha! Thanks, I never noticed the Submit a Request link for the Knowledge Books!

Me either! That's exactly what I was looking for!

[knowschad]

Aha! Thanks, I never noticed the Submit a Request link for the Knowledge Books!

Me either! That's exactly what I was looking for!

Now we just need to add links to it in our signatures!

[+Walts Hunting]

WOW an intelligent discussion of a suggestion by a significant number of participants. I don't think I have ever encountered this before.

[knowschad]

WOW an intelligent discussion of a suggestion by a significant number of participants. I don't think I have ever encountered this before.

Skipped over my contributions, huh?

[+Sapience Trek]

Ask 20 different reviewers what they think of something, and you'll get 20 different answers.

No you won't.

 

 

That's correct. Everybody knows you'll get 27 answers.

[AZcachemeister]

While I think it's a neat and worthwhile idea to have an "Ask The Reviewer" forum, I think I see a fly in the ointment - what happens when two reviewers disagree?

It could be a new revenue stream for Groundspeak! They fight a cage match, on YouTube. I'd pay to watch and I would accept the victor's answer!

 

Now we're talking about some REAL entertainment!

 

I noticed Keystone chimed in above stating you WOULDN'T get 20 different answers from 20 different reviewers...and I kinda bet you wouldn't either.

 

OTOH, I'd bet there would be certain variations on the theme, and there WOULD be regional differences.

 

I'm putting $10 on Roadrunner. He's a big guy, and I know he likes it rough.