Jump to content

opencaching.com new mascot...


FickFam

Recommended Posts

(Hyperbole warning.)

...

(Hyperbole over, you can come out now.)

Yeah, I'm not convinced it would work. I'm just not convinced it *couldn't*. Sometimes caches in my area get published that shouldn't have been published, and it can take a few days to get it straightened out. We had a couple of caches that were attached to DOT bridges that took a week to get retracted (not just archived). It wasn't the fault of the reviewer - (s)he disabled the caches as soon as a problem was suspected, and a few days after that as the situation became clear the caches were obliterated. It was appropriate action, the reviewer did a good job, and I believe it headed off problems with the local authorities.

 

What I'm chewing on is whether or not it necessarily would have been handled worse on a system with a robust peer review system. I don't even know if a responsible peer review community could develop, but I also don't know that it couldn't just because it hasn't in this specific framework. (Usual caveat applies to this post - I'd prefer there to be a review system on the new site.)

Link to comment
Letterboxing has been around since, what, 1854? They're all over the place. No Reviewers. No total ban. No end of the game.

 

Just sayin' :anicute:

There have never been enough of them to cause any issues with the law or with land managers that I have ever heard of.

 

As for the Wikipedia comparisons... have any of you ever looked at the History and Discussions tabs on Wikipedia? There are plenty of very active and very serious "voluntary reviewers" active there. It is far from the anarchy that is the impression most people have of the place.

Link to comment

Letterboxing has been around since, what, 1854? They're all over the place. No Reviewers. No total ban. No end of the game.

 

Just sayin' :anicute:

 

Yes and I can't tell you how many times the wife has gone looking for a letterbox and it wasn't there anymore and nobody had reported it or removed the listing. Letterboxes get placed in area where letterboxes are not permitted, get removed by the responsible authority and then somebody re-lists a letterbox in the same area. Vacation letterboxes happen all the time- these are the ones most commonly abandoned or placed in areas they aren't wanted. Why do these things happen? No review process.

 

Why does this not negatively affect geocaching on any significant scale?

 

Compare the raw numbers- letterboxes to geocaches and geocachers to letterboxers.

 

When the two letterbox sites start allowing mass imports of geocaches into their databases the comparisons will be relevant, until then it's really huge apples to teeny-tiny apples.

Link to comment
Letterboxing has been around since, what, 1854? They're all over the place. No Reviewers. No total ban. No end of the game.

 

Just sayin' :anicute:

There have never been enough of them to cause any issues with the law or with land managers that I have ever heard of.

 

As for the Wikipedia comparisons... have any of you ever looked at the History and Discussions tabs on Wikipedia? There are plenty of very active and very serious "voluntary reviewers" active there. It is far from the anarchy that is the impression most people have of the place.

Precisely why such a system could work on opencaching.com Here we get people asking all the time how to become reviewers. If you didn't have "official" reviewers what makes you think there won't be plenty of people who take on the mission of checking out new caches to see if they are in violation of the guidelines and reporting these. It will take some work to let people know that the peer review system requires people to "volunteer" some time to check for things that can be problems, but I think there are enough geocachers that would be willing to do this.

Link to comment
Letterboxing has been around since, what, 1854? They're all over the place. No Reviewers. No total ban. No end of the game.

 

Just sayin' :anicute:

There have never been enough of them to cause any issues with the law or with land managers that I have ever heard of.

 

As for the Wikipedia comparisons... have any of you ever looked at the History and Discussions tabs on Wikipedia? There are plenty of very active and very serious "voluntary reviewers" active there. It is far from the anarchy that is the impression most people have of the place.

 

I've brought up the same exact point TAR did here on several occasions. Now, Letterboxing is probably 1/10th the size of Geocaching; I just looked, and AtlasQuest.com has approximately 111,000 active listings, aprroximately 168,000 if you include "not available" and "retired". I have no clue how to tell how many listings are on Letterboxing.org, but I'll bet most are cross-listed on Atlas Quest. Compare this to Navicache (under 10,000 listings, most of them cross-posted), or Terracaching.com (about 10,000 listings).

 

So no, it's not Geocaching, but still rather sizable. No total ban. No apocalyptic ending. No anarchy instigated by Jomarac5, CavScout, and Ashnikes. Yet, at least. :)

Link to comment
On Wikipedia, a poorly edited page or lack of references won't result in the the banning of Wikipedia from large chunks of acreage.

it would result in a general decrease of credibility of all content on wikipedia. of course some people try to use this argument against you when you try to use wikipedia as reference and they disagree with you, but for all other cases it doesn't hold true: wikipedia has quite a high level of reputation and credibility.

Link to comment
Letterboxing has been around since, what, 1854? They're all over the place. No Reviewers. No total ban. No end of the game.

 

Just sayin' :anicute:

There have never been enough of them to cause any issues with the law or with land managers that I have ever heard of.

 

As for the Wikipedia comparisons... have any of you ever looked at the History and Discussions tabs on Wikipedia? There are plenty of very active and very serious "voluntary reviewers" active there. It is far from the anarchy that is the impression most people have of the place.

Precisely why such a system could work on opencaching.com Here we get people asking all the time how to become reviewers. If you didn't have "official" reviewers what makes you think there won't be plenty of people who take on the mission of checking out new caches to see if they are in violation of the guidelines and reporting these. It will take some work to let people know that the peer review system requires people to "volunteer" some time to check for things that can be problems, but I think there are enough geocachers that would be willing to do this.

Alright, buddy... what happened to Toz? The real Toz would never have said that in a single paragraph. Return the real Toz immediately! :)

 

Seriously... I think the comparison is weak, at best. As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing. Also, the volunteer editors are right there, jumping on the pages almost as they are published/changed. A cache may go a long time without a volunteer cache cop visiting it.

Link to comment
Seriously... I think the comparison is weak, at best. As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing. Also, the volunteer editors are right there, jumping on the pages almost as they are published/changed. A cache may go a long time without a volunteer cache cop visiting it.

It's possible that with more at stake, a community could develop to be at least as vigilant as Wikipedia has turned out to be. As seriously as the Wiki community takes their roles, I'm not sure that they would take them any less seriously if there was a threat of criminal prosecution for a bad entry.

Link to comment

Letterboxing has been around since, what, 1854? They're all over the place. No Reviewers. No total ban. No end of the game.

 

Just sayin' :anicute:

 

Until Atlasquest came along letterboxing was pretty much under the radar. And until Atlasquest there were no pretty maps that told a land manager exactly where letterboxes were on their property.

 

It is also a much smaller game. There aren't over a million of the things. It's why I wasn't super concerned with Navicache or Terracaching's lack of a centralized review process. The potential for damage was there but considering the relatively low number of caches the potential was small.

 

I doubt the Garmin folks are thinking small. It's obvious from they way them made importing caches and even finds from other sites so easy that they want to be THE geocaching site.

 

BTW letterboxing is banned in many of the same places that geocaching is banned.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Seriously... I think the comparison is weak, at best. As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing. Also, the volunteer editors are right there, jumping on the pages almost as they are published/changed. A cache may go a long time without a volunteer cache cop visiting it.

It's possible that with more at stake, a community could develop to be at least as vigilant as Wikipedia has turned out to be. As seriously as the Wiki community takes their roles, I'm not sure that they would take them any less seriously if there was a threat of criminal prosecution for a bad entry.

 

I hope you're right, but if [some of] the folks that are currently posting to the forum over there are any indication of the general level of responsibility and clear thinking of those that will be taking over that job, I don't have a lot of hope.

Link to comment
Seriously... I think the comparison is weak, at best. As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing. Also, the volunteer editors are right there, jumping on the pages almost as they are published/changed. A cache may go a long time without a volunteer cache cop visiting it.

It's possible that with more at stake, a community could develop to be at least as vigilant as Wikipedia has turned out to be. As seriously as the Wiki community takes their roles, I'm not sure that they would take them any less seriously if there was a threat of criminal prosecution for a bad entry.

 

The other problem I see with this is the often times divergent schools of thought that emerge within the community. You've got the numbers runners, the LPC lovers/haters, etc. What happens with two divergent groups are suddenly competing for the same acreage with polarizing philosophies of caching... AND now they're wholey responsible for the first line of defense in reviews.

 

Seems like a formula for drama to me.

Link to comment

...As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing...

Actually it does! I have kids in 2 colleges and neither school will accept Wikipedia citations for English or Science papers because Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed and is often wrong.

Link to comment

...As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing...

Actually it does! I have kids in 2 colleges and neither school will accept Wikipedia citations for English or Science papers because Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed and is often wrong.

Wouldn't be the first teacher/college professor that was misinformed or just plain wrong about something. As I said... just take a look at the history and discussion tabs on just about any page. In fact, the professors should really encourage them to use Wikipedia... BUT to research the history and discussion pages, and also to verify the information against other sources.
Link to comment
...As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing...
Actually it does! I have kids in 2 colleges and neither school will accept Wikipedia citations for English or Science papers because Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed and is often wrong.
Wouldn't be the first teacher/college professor that was misinformed or just plain wrong about something. As I said... just take a look at the history and discussion tabs on just about any page. In fact, the professors should really encourage them to use Wikipedia... BUT to research the history and discussion pages, and also to verify the information against other sources.

I wouldn't accept Wikipedia as a citation myself, and I'm a fan. The format doesn't lend itself well to that. But it's a fantastic place to go as a first step in research. The overviews are pretty good, and the footnotes and links to more primary source material in many of the articles are great.

Link to comment

...As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing...

Actually it does! I have kids in 2 colleges and neither school will accept Wikipedia citations for English or Science papers because Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed and is often wrong.

 

I would mark someone down an entire letter grade for using Wikipedia as a reference in an academic paper. Other encyclopedias are generally unacceptable for university level work as well.

 

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that the sources used for its articles are usually listed, so there's no reason why a student can't go to Wikipedia first, and then track down the primary sources.

 

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, and an excellent example of how community collaboration and self-policing really can turn out an excellent product.

Link to comment

...As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing...

Actually it does! I have kids in 2 colleges and neither school will accept Wikipedia citations for English or Science papers because Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed and is often wrong.

 

I would mark someone down an entire letter grade for using Wikipedia as a reference in an academic paper. Other encyclopedias are generally unacceptable for university level work as well.

 

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that the sources used for its articles are usually listed, so there's no reason why a student can't go to Wikipedia first, and then track down the primary sources.

 

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, and an excellent example of how community collaboration and self-policing really can turn out an excellent product.

Again, Wikipedia articles and geocaches are apples and orangatans. What works for one does not necessarily work for the other.
Link to comment
Again, Wikipedia articles and geocaches are apples and orangatans. What works for one does not necessarily work for the other.

I totally acknowledge that. They're not perfect parallels - nothing is ever exactly like something else. I'm just saying that it's neither a given that a lack of a formal review process will lead to anarchy. There are some examples of self-policing electronic communities that seem to work okay. There's 4chan, yes, but there's also Wikipedia.

 

My gut tells me that cachers are more like the latter than the former, but I certainly don't know for sure.

Link to comment
relying on geocachers to report and correct infractions is doomed to fail because it doesn't work well here.

Yeah, I was just guessing, based on what I've seen here, which, since GC and OC are two different critters, does not make for a truly valid comparison. It's almost an apples/oranges comparison. It is quite possible that a truly self regulated site will keep itself free from caches that violate the guidelines. I don't personally believe this, but I recognize the possibility.

 

Here we get people asking all the time how to become reviewers. If you didn't have "official" reviewers what makes you think there won't be plenty of people who take on the mission of checking out new caches to see if they are in violation of the guidelines and reporting these.

You're argument seems to hinge on the theory that the existence of company based reviewers on GC is the reason that players here don't regularly report violations. I think that's one heck of a big stretch in logic. For a peer driven review system to function, (assuming that the end goal is to have no active caches in violation of the guidelines), every single player would have to be on board with the concept that reporting violations is good for the overall health of the game. I can't think of a single reason why, removing the reviewing staff from the occasion would cause folks who are hesitant to report violators, (even though GS has an anonymous means to do so), to suddenly become willing to do so.

 

A peer dependent review system depends on someone else visiting the site of the cache.

 

That's a recipe for both failure and disaster.

Link to comment
Again, Wikipedia articles and geocaches are apples and orangatans. What works for one does not necessarily work for the other.

I totally acknowledge that. They're not perfect parallels - nothing is ever exactly like something else. I'm just saying that it's neither a given that a lack of a formal review process will lead to anarchy. There are some examples of self-policing electronic communities that seem to work okay. There's 4chan, yes, but there's also Wikipedia.

 

My gut tells me that cachers are more like the latter than the former, but I certainly don't know for sure.

 

Not to get into a discussion of Wikipedia, but there is a Wikipedia entry for a WW2 subject and someone changed the code name for a piece of military equipment to my father's name. I guess it was a joke, but it's been there for years.

 

I've written a few Wikipedia articles. Some have since been enhanced but most of my original text is still there. Who knows, I could have made it all up.

 

Some articles are well policed and others are not. It depends on whether someone takes an interest in the article.

 

Anyway, I don't see a parallel between Wikipedia and geocaching. Now if Wikipedia gave out the equivalent of "smileys" for every article written, edited or read and it became a competition to see who received the most smileys do you think their model would work as well?

Link to comment
Well I used my Garmin account to create an opencaching account and I guess I'll help self police my general area. So far every cache I've seen is cross-listed so no worries yet.
Question: what happens when somebody reports a cross-listed cache on OC for deletion, but doesn't also post a NA on GC (or vice-versa) and the cache gets archived on one site, but not on the other?
Link to comment
Well I used my Garmin account to create an opencaching account and I guess I'll help self police my general area. So far every cache I've seen is cross-listed so no worries yet.
Question: what happens when somebody reports a cross-listed cache on OC for deletion, but doesn't also post a NA on GC (or vice-versa) and the cache gets archived on one site, but not on the other?

God kills a kitten.

Link to comment
If I find one in obvious violation I would report it to both sites. I mainly am concerned with those obviously off-limit over here due to a reviewer but okay over there. (Graveyards and DNR for SC)
How will you know that it is a cross-listed cache, if you happen to go after it from the Groundspeak listing?
Link to comment

Since they use the GC code and change it to OX. Right now it's easy enough to check for the 20 or so caches in SC. I see no harm in having an account and occasionally looking for a cache placed on land that prohibits caching. Instead of complaining and doing nothing to make sure SC doesn't try to ban caching again I mine as well be an average Joe cache reviewer.

Link to comment
Now if Wikipedia gave out the equivalent of "smileys" for every article written, edited or read and it became a competition to see who received the most smileys do you think their model would work as well?
I doubt it. I don't think that would work very well for Wikipedia.

 

I guess all I'm trying to say is that electronic communities without strong top-down authority don't necessarily always lead to anarchy. There are some, where people care about the integrity of the system. Whether that might apply to geocaching, I don't know. But I think that there are a fair number of geocachers who care about geocaching as a whole and don't want to see it wrecked. I've been keeping an eye on OX's in my area, and if I saw one placed at the UN, or on the Brooklyn Bridge, would I report it? You bet your bippy. I like IkeHurley's perspective:

 

Instead of complaining and doing nothing to make sure SC doesn't try to ban caching again I might as well be an average Joe cache reviewer.
I don't know if he's typical or not, but I hope there is someone like him in most areas.

 

(Standard caveat - I still would prefer the new site to use reviewers)

Link to comment
Here we get people asking all the time how to become reviewers. If you didn't have "official" reviewers what makes you think there won't be plenty of people who take on the mission of checking out new caches to see if they are in violation of the guidelines and reporting these.

You're argument seems to hinge on the theory that the existence of company based reviewers on GC is the reason that players here don't regularly report violations. I think that's one heck of a big stretch in logic. For a peer driven review system to function, (assuming that the end goal is to have no active caches in violation of the guidelines), every single player would have to be on board with the concept that reporting violations is good for the overall health of the game. I can't think of a single reason why, removing the reviewing staff from the occasion would cause folks who are hesitant to report violators, (even though GS has an anonymous means to do so), to suddenly become willing to do so.

 

A peer dependent review system depends on someone else visiting the site of the cache.

 

That's a recipe for both failure and disaster.

I don;t believe it is a big stretch that some people don't report problem with cache on GC.com because they were approve so they must be OK. I've heard this from some people. In certain case the same assumptions the reviewers made are made by finders. In particular, if I go looking for a cache and see it is in some store's parking lot, unless I get questioned by and employee or security guard, I will assume the owner had adequate permission.

 

Peer review does not require every single player has to be reporting violations, only a significant number. It seems to work for keeping pornography, threats, and copyright material off of YouTube.

 

A peer review system does not depend on someone visiting the cache. If you see a problem with the listing you can report it. This is independent of finding the cache. Certainly if you go to the cache site you might find some problems that aren't obvious from Google maps. Seems to be the same caches that would be approved on GC.com and need to be caught when a geocacher visits the site and gets chased off by Billy Bob Nosepicker with his shotgun.

 

Well I used my Garmin account to create an opencaching account and I guess I'll help self police my general area. So far every cache I've seen is cross-listed so no worries yet.
Question: what happens when somebody reports a cross-listed cache on OC for deletion, but doesn't also post a NA on GC (or vice-versa) and the cache gets archived on one site, but not on the other?

May be that the cache is OK under one site's guidelines and not on the other. There's already been some discussion on opencaching.com's safety guideline.
Link to comment
It seems to work for keeping pornography, threats, and copyright material off of YouTube.

Apples to orangutans.

While I have not actually counted, I would guess that there are a few more customers on UTube than there are players at OC. If I post a UTube video with something horrendous in it, it might get viewed ten thousand times before it gets reported. Applying those percentages to OC would have a cache found numerous times before it ever gets reported. Since that's the norm here, I would assume that would be the norm at OC. You have not presented any evidence that eliminating reviewers from the equation some how makes people more conscious of the rules of the game. Having a bad cache found once is detrimental for this game. Multiplying the finds multiplies the detriment. GC has a two layer system for dealing with bad caches. OC has one. Math tells me that two would be more effective.

 

A peer review system does not depend on someone visiting the cache.

At a minimum, it requires a player, (as opposed to a person of authority), to scrutinize the cache page. That person would need to be cognizant of land manager policies. As the most common violation seems to be permission related, I'm guessing that a lot of players are pretty clueless about that aspect of this game. The 64 caches I cross listed to OC are pretty good examples of this. At least 20 of them are in places where explicit permission is required. As an OC player, can you find which 20 they are? To date, no one has questioned me to see if I have even adequate permission for these hides. Though this does bring up another query. Assume for argument sake that you report one of my caches as being in violation. What happens at that point? At GC, if your claim seemed valid, a reviewer would likely disable or archive my cache, asking for an explanation. Judging from some responses I've seen in this thread, OC doesn't ask any questions when they receive a complaint. They go right past disabling and archiving, to deletion. The cache owner can't even see his own cache page. It's just gone. "Poof". As the owner I have no avenue to redress my grievance, as I never even get notified that my cache went "Poof".

 

Further proof of the value of Groundspeak's volunteer reviewer staff.

Link to comment

As others have pointed out, this will be good for geocaching.com as it will bring additional features to the site that many people have been asking for.

 

While Garmin has deep pockets, it will take a lot of time and $$ to make it a site people actually use. Sometimes winner takes all, esp when the cost is already free to the end user. There are many examples of this on the internet today.

 

So if this makes my caching experience better, then I am happy.

Link to comment
Seriously... I think the comparison is weak, at best. As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing. Also, the volunteer editors are right there, jumping on the pages almost as they are published/changed. A cache may go a long time without a volunteer cache cop visiting it.

It's possible that with more at stake, a community could develop to be at least as vigilant as Wikipedia has turned out to be. As seriously as the Wiki community takes their roles, I'm not sure that they would take them any less seriously if there was a threat of criminal prosecution for a bad entry.

 

The other problem I see with this is the often times divergent schools of thought that emerge within the community. You've got the numbers runners, the LPC lovers/haters, etc. What happens with two divergent groups are suddenly competing for the same acreage with polarizing philosophies of caching... AND now they're wholey responsible for the first line of defense in reviews.

 

Seems like a formula for drama to me.

Here is my drama related hyperbole (I had posted this on our local forum)

I think Bob got my cache deleted because I didn't have permission. So I report 5 of Bob's caches, they now get deleted. Bob gets mad and steals all of my caches. I see Bob at Beer and Pizza, and kick his ***. Well, Bob it bigger than me, so I try to kick his ***, but I end up in the hospital. Then I sue Bob for assault. He counter sues for assault and battery, and legal fees. Bob wins lawsuit. I get realy mad, and start stalking him. Bob gets a restraining order. I bring my dirt bike to his house, and tear up his lawn after slashing his tires. Bob calls the cops, and I go to jail for breaking the restraining order...
Link to comment
Seriously... I think the comparison is weak, at best. As has already been pointed out, a bad Wikipedia entry generally does not result in Wikipedia entries being banned or Wikipedia readers getting arrested for trespassing. Also, the volunteer editors are right there, jumping on the pages almost as they are published/changed. A cache may go a long time without a volunteer cache cop visiting it.

It's possible that with more at stake, a community could develop to be at least as vigilant as Wikipedia has turned out to be. As seriously as the Wiki community takes their roles, I'm not sure that they would take them any less seriously if there was a threat of criminal prosecution for a bad entry.

 

The other problem I see with this is the often times divergent schools of thought that emerge within the community. You've got the numbers runners, the LPC lovers/haters, etc. What happens with two divergent groups are suddenly competing for the same acreage with polarizing philosophies of caching... AND now they're wholey responsible for the first line of defense in reviews.

 

Seems like a formula for drama to me.

Here is my drama related hyperbole (I had posted this on our local forum)

I think Bob got my cache deleted because I didn't have permission. So I report 5 of Bob's caches, they now get deleted. Bob gets mad and steals all of my caches. I see Bob at Beer and Pizza, and kick his ***. Well, Bob it bigger than me, so I try to kick his ***, but I end up in the hospital. Then I sue Bob for assault. He counter sues for assault and battery, and legal fees. Bob wins lawsuit. I get realy mad, and start stalking him. Bob gets a restraining order. I bring my dirt bike to his house, and tear up his lawn after slashing his tires. Bob calls the cops, and I go to jail for breaking the restraining order...

Jeez, that cold white winter sure screws with peoples minds. :P

 

Actually I'm more concerned about the GC.com malcontents doing what they can do to cause as much grief as possible for GC.com knowing that GC.com can't do squat. Dropping caches on top of GC.com caches, planting illegal caches that point to GC.com, etc.

Link to comment

The Groundspeak SBA system doesn't work quite as well as it's perceived. To begin with, the obvious way of reporting a cache is a very public one that can put the reporter at odds not only with the owner of the cache, but other cachers who find the cache "fun" and "okay." The existing system also puts the onus on the reporter to prove there is a violation. In many instances the cache remains active until the cache owner agrees. We reported a cache that was near a 480 volt welding receptacle and another that required stopping on an interstate. It took an inordinate amount of time and multiple communications before they were archived. During this time, new finders will being placed in harm's way. Our most recent experience is a problematic cache that was placed by a seasoned reviewer. Other than writing GS, how do you work that one? (We haven't had much success emailing GS ... can't even get a blooming problem with a travel bug fixed.)

 

Bottom line, the approach used by GS puts pressure on the wrong individual. It should be up to the cache owner, not the reporter, to validate their cache one way or the other. Likewise, that process should be quick and anonymous (if the reporter chooses) and fairly hassle-free for the reporter. To do otherwise, discourages the reporting of bad caches.

 

Given the problems we've experienced, I don't know ... yet ... that the OC version is all that bad.

Link to comment

The Groundspeak SBA system doesn't work quite as well as it's perceived. To begin with, the obvious way of reporting a cache is a very public one that can put the reporter at odds not only with the owner of the cache, but other cachers who find the cache "fun" and "okay." The existing system also puts the onus on the reporter to prove there is a violation. In many instances the cache remains active until the cache owner agrees. We reported a cache that was near a 480 volt welding receptacle and another that required stopping on an interstate. It took an inordinate amount of time and multiple communications before they were archived. During this time, new finders will being placed in harm's way. Our most recent experience is a problematic cache that was placed by a seasoned reviewer. Other than writing GS, how do you work that one? (We haven't had much success emailing GS ... can't even get a blooming problem with a travel bug fixed.)

 

Bottom line, the approach used by GS puts pressure on the wrong individual. It should be up to the cache owner, not the reporter, to validate their cache one way or the other. Likewise, that process should be quick and anonymous (if the reporter chooses) and fairly hassle-free for the reporter. To do otherwise, discourages the reporting of bad caches.

 

Given the problems we've experienced, I don't know ... yet ... that the OC version is all that bad.

 

There's always the option of contacting the reviewer outside the archival process. This is usually the best drama-free solution. We aren't beholden to only hitting the Needs Archived button.

Link to comment

The Groundspeak SBA system doesn't work quite as well as it's perceived. To begin with, the obvious way of reporting a cache is a very public one that can put the reporter at odds not only with the owner of the cache, but other cachers who find the cache "fun" and "okay." The existing system also puts the onus on the reporter to prove there is a violation. In many instances the cache remains active until the cache owner agrees. We reported a cache that was near a 480 volt welding receptacle and another that required stopping on an interstate. It took an inordinate amount of time and multiple communications before they were archived. During this time, new finders will being placed in harm's way. Our most recent experience is a problematic cache that was placed by a seasoned reviewer. Other than writing GS, how do you work that one? (We haven't had much success emailing GS ... can't even get a blooming problem with a travel bug fixed.)

 

Bottom line, the approach used by GS puts pressure on the wrong individual. It should be up to the cache owner, not the reporter, to validate their cache one way or the other. Likewise, that process should be quick and anonymous (if the reporter chooses) and fairly hassle-free for the reporter. To do otherwise, discourages the reporting of bad caches.

 

Given the problems we've experienced, I don't know ... yet ... that the OC version is all that bad.

 

There's always the option of contacting the reviewer outside the archival process. This is usually the best drama-free solution. We aren't beholden to only hitting the Needs Archived button.

 

It's flippant remarks like that turn people off to even trying. We currently have 2 of the best reviewers anywhere. I have direct email access to both and the telephone number for one of them. Both have been incredibly professional and an absolute pleasure to deal with. They are not the problem. The system is the problem and it's broke. Even with the relationship we have with our two reviewers, these days we just call the authorities. If it's blatantly unsafe or in a prohibited area, we don't even mess with GS. We're sick and tried of trying to do the right thing and being labeled as whiners, cache cops, or worse. It's a lot less hassle to just call the cops or land owner and let them deal with GS.

Link to comment

Given the problems we've experienced, I don't know ... yet ... that the OC version is all that bad.

 

My meager understanding of the other site is that it produces an audit trail, similar to the PMO caches on this site. I don't believe it's quite so anonymous as you might think. Time will tell how drama free it remains :P

Link to comment
There's always the option of contacting the reviewer outside the archival process. This is usually the best drama-free solution. We aren't beholden to only hitting the Needs Archived button.

 

It's flippant remarks like that turn people off to even trying. We currently have 2 of the best reviewers anywhere. I have direct email access to both and the telephone number for one of them. Both have been incredibly professional and an absolute pleasure to deal with. They are not the problem. The system is the problem and it's broke. Even with the relationship we have with our two reviewers, these days we just call the authorities. If it's blatantly unsafe or in a prohibited area, we don't even mess with GS. We're sick and tried of trying to do the right thing and being labeled as whiners, cache cops, or worse. It's a lot less hassle to just call the cops or land owner and let them deal with GS.

 

I wasn't being flippant at all. There is an alternative to hitting the NA button if you want to avoid being targeted as "the person that shut down so-and-so's cache". Sounds like there's more to this story, however, if you're finding the need to escalate to the local authorities and if you report caches so frequently.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

It's flippant remarks like that turn people off to even trying. We currently have 2 of the best reviewers anywhere. I have direct email access to both and the telephone number for one of them. Both have been incredibly professional and an absolute pleasure to deal with. They are not the problem. The system is the problem and it's broke. Even with the relationship we have with our two reviewers, these days we just call the authorities. If it's blatantly unsafe or in a prohibited area, we don't even mess with GS. We're sick and tried of trying to do the right thing and being labeled as whiners, cache cops, or worse. It's a lot less hassle to just call the cops or land owner and let them deal with GS.

The two reviewers I've dealt with in our area have been absolutely wonderful to deal with. In the instances that I've brought something to their attention they have dealt with the situation in a reasonable and respectful manner to all parties involved.

 

From my experience I see no reason not to continue to work through GS if I have a concern about something.

 

I'll bet reviewers get complaints all the time from irrational cachers who don't agree with something that is perfectly within the guidelines. As a result I make a point of providing a picture, when possible, so the reviewer has a better picture of the situation.

 

A favorite saying I once heard was:

 

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

 

Any process that involves humans is not going to be perfect, but I'll take the current volunteer reviewers over the current OC setup any day of the week.

Link to comment
There's always the option of contacting the reviewer outside the archival process. This is usually the best drama-free solution. We aren't beholden to only hitting the Needs Archived button.

 

It's flippant remarks like that turn people off to even trying. We currently have 2 of the best reviewers anywhere. I have direct email access to both and the telephone number for one of them. Both have been incredibly professional and an absolute pleasure to deal with. They are not the problem. The system is the problem and it's broke. Even with the relationship we have with our two reviewers, these days we just call the authorities. If it's blatantly unsafe or in a prohibited area, we don't even mess with GS. We're sick and tried of trying to do the right thing and being labeled as whiners, cache cops, or worse. It's a lot less hassle to just call the cops or land owner and let them deal with GS.

 

I wasn't being flippant at all. There is an alternative to hitting the NA button if you want to avoid being targeted as "the person that shut down so-and-so's cache". Sounds like there's more to this story, however, if you're finding the need to escalate to the local authorities and if you report caches so frequently.

Attack my wife and me as the problem since we've reported at best a half dozen caches out of nearly 9000. Matter of fact, delete my message in your response so you can look good in the process. You've made my point.

Link to comment
There's always the option of contacting the reviewer outside the archival process. This is usually the best drama-free solution. We aren't beholden to only hitting the Needs Archived button.

 

It's flippant remarks like that turn people off to even trying. We currently have 2 of the best reviewers anywhere. I have direct email access to both and the telephone number for one of them. Both have been incredibly professional and an absolute pleasure to deal with. They are not the problem. The system is the problem and it's broke. Even with the relationship we have with our two reviewers, these days we just call the authorities. If it's blatantly unsafe or in a prohibited area, we don't even mess with GS. We're sick and tried of trying to do the right thing and being labeled as whiners, cache cops, or worse. It's a lot less hassle to just call the cops or land owner and let them deal with GS.

 

I wasn't being flippant at all. There is an alternative to hitting the NA button if you want to avoid being targeted as "the person that shut down so-and-so's cache". Sounds like there's more to this story, however, if you're finding the need to escalate to the local authorities and if you report caches so frequently.

I don't get it. You know our Reviewers. You know how to contact them publicly and privately. I think you share my high opinion of their responsive helpful nature. I think the NA system works, at least it always has for me, and if I felt the need to anonymously suggest an archival I can go around the NA system and email the Reviewer directly. I've never felt the need to do that, but your mileage may vary.

 

Is there a problem I'm not seeing?

Link to comment

Attack my wife and me as the problem since we've reported at best a half dozen caches out of nearly 9000. Matter of fact, delete my message in your response so you can look good in the process. You've made my point.

I've had one instance where I had mine deleted as well, even though the problem continued to exist. It wasn't a pleasant experience.

 

In talking with other cachers, it appears that a couple of CO's in our area regularly do what you you experienced. It's unfortunate, to say the least.

Link to comment
There's always the option of contacting the reviewer outside the archival process. This is usually the best drama-free solution. We aren't beholden to only hitting the Needs Archived button.

 

It's flippant remarks like that turn people off to even trying. We currently have 2 of the best reviewers anywhere. I have direct email access to both and the telephone number for one of them. Both have been incredibly professional and an absolute pleasure to deal with. They are not the problem. The system is the problem and it's broke. Even with the relationship we have with our two reviewers, these days we just call the authorities. If it's blatantly unsafe or in a prohibited area, we don't even mess with GS. We're sick and tried of trying to do the right thing and being labeled as whiners, cache cops, or worse. It's a lot less hassle to just call the cops or land owner and let them deal with GS.

 

I wasn't being flippant at all. There is an alternative to hitting the NA button if you want to avoid being targeted as "the person that shut down so-and-so's cache". Sounds like there's more to this story, however, if you're finding the need to escalate to the local authorities and if you report caches so frequently.

Attack my wife and me as the problem since we've reported at best a half dozen caches out of nearly 9000. Matter of fact, delete my message in your response so you can look good in the process. You've made my point.

 

I did not attack anybody. You are being exceedingly prickly to my posts and are reading much more into them than I'm typing. If this, to me, is an indication that perhaps there is something else to your story then I should not be afraid to say as much here.

 

And yes, in my opinion, reporting half of 9000 caches does seem a little on the high side- for one reason or another. Oops.

 

I deleted your original post because multiple nested quotes add clutter. There was nothing in that post that I removed to make my post look better. If you're so inclined feel free to hit the report button on my posts and call in a mod. I'm sure they will take the appropriate action.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment
There's always the option of contacting the reviewer outside the archival process. This is usually the best drama-free solution. We aren't beholden to only hitting the Needs Archived button.

 

It's flippant remarks like that turn people off to even trying. We currently have 2 of the best reviewers anywhere. I have direct email access to both and the telephone number for one of them. Both have been incredibly professional and an absolute pleasure to deal with. They are not the problem. The system is the problem and it's broke. Even with the relationship we have with our two reviewers, these days we just call the authorities. If it's blatantly unsafe or in a prohibited area, we don't even mess with GS. We're sick and tried of trying to do the right thing and being labeled as whiners, cache cops, or worse. It's a lot less hassle to just call the cops or land owner and let them deal with GS.

 

I wasn't being flippant at all. There is an alternative to hitting the NA button if you want to avoid being targeted as "the person that shut down so-and-so's cache". Sounds like there's more to this story, however, if you're finding the need to escalate to the local authorities and if you report caches so frequently.

Attack my wife and me as the problem since we've reported at best a half dozen caches out of nearly 9000. Matter of fact, delete my message in your response so you can look good in the process. You've made my point.

I sure wish that you would start a new thread to discuss the issues that you are having. Obviously, you feel that the issue is important and the rest of us love a good story.
Link to comment

...we've reported at best a half dozen caches out of nearly 9000. ...

...And yes, in my opinion, reporting half of 9000 caches does seem a little on the high side- for ...

He didn't report 4500 caches, he reported 6. That actualy seems a little on the low side.

Edited by Andronicus
Link to comment

He didn't report 4500 caches, he reported 6. That actualy seems a little on the low side.

 

And yes, in my opinion, reporting half of 9000 caches does seem a little on the high side- for one reason or another.

FWIW, I think it was a half dozen, not half of 9000.

 

Got it. My mistake. For some reason I jumped to the conclusion that there were multiple caches with huge problems that were having to be reported. I see now that it took less than half a dozen before they gave up on the process and starting calling in the cops. My bad.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

There's always the option of contacting the reviewer outside the archival process. This is usually the best drama-free solution. We aren't beholden to only hitting the Needs Archived button.

 

It's flippant remarks like that...

Sorry Tigerz, I'm not seeing anything flippant about that remark. Perhaps your sensitivity meter is turned up a little too high? You made a perfectly valid comment, indicating that taking a public stance to get a cache archived can have negative repercussions. CM pointed out that there was an alternative to the public stance for those who wish to avoid drama. Both are pretty effective methods for dealing with a problem cache.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...