Jump to content

Organizing an appeal board for disapproved caches


Team RedCow

Recommended Posts

I have noticed that there has been a lot of discontent over the past few months, including some of my own, over caches that were disapproved. It seems that the approval of newly submitted caches is dependent on the opinion of a select few with Groundspeak and the small volunteer force. I know of one geocacher who got so frustrated over the disapproval of his police car cache that he quit the game. What was never mentioned in the postings about his cache was that the cache owner was himself a police officer. He naturally took the disapproval of his cache quite personally. I even submitted a locationless cache proposal of closed military bases. It, too, was disapproved. And there are a lot of others.

The issue here is NOT locationless caches. (Many of you don't even like them. Face it, hunting regular caches and locationless caches is basically two different games. One is high-tech hide and seek; the other a global scavenger hunt. Personally, I like to do both.) While locationless caches seem to get the brunt of disapprovals the issue here is whether the select few should have total authority over the approval of caches. Let's face it, this game has grown WAY beyond the select few who are making the rules.

What I suggest is that a committee be formed that geocachers can appeal to if they disagree with the approval/disapproval decision. Don't tell me that's what the forum is for. BULL. After all the forum opinions are posted the decision to approve or disapprove still rests in the hands of Jeremy, Erik, et al.

Why can't we periodically elect/select a group of regional volunteers who would form an appeals committee? For example, each state can elect via the forum one geocache team/person to represent geocachers in that state/province. These volunteers would be up for election once a year. Then when a cache is disapproved, if the geocacher wants to appeal the decision he/she has someone to appeal to. The committee can read the cache report and vote yes or no. If the vote is no, the disapproval is upheld. If yes, the cache is approved and goes online.

Now don't tell me this is too much work. As I said, this game has gone way beyond the opinions of a select few. Setting up an appeal option on the geocaching.com website would not be that difficult. Place a button on the website that would take you to the appeal option. Submit your cache. The site could then email a copy of the cache report to the committee for consideration. Each committee member then sends his answer back. The results are quickly tabulated online and the approval/disapproval occurs. Easy.

Now why can't we do that and eliminate all the disagreements and hard feelings over disapproved caches?

Link to comment

Sounds reasonable to me... but after all, this is Groundspeak's site and I guess they can do as they want to do. Even though I think this is a good idea, I don't think it will ever happen. There are alternate sites where you can list caches that don't get approved here and on some of these alternate sites you can also meet people who don't post or hunt caches from here. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I like the idea, but I just can't imagine that Jeremy would allow this to happen. I don't think any less of Jeremy for this decision, after all, it's his hardware and bandwidth... no one is forcing me to pay $3/month. I could still use the service for free if I chose to do so. I say this as someone that had a cache disapproved and archived and as someone that is a police officer and tried to express to Jeremy that some of the things he was publicly stating about police officers was not true. Anyways, that's my two-cents... your milage may vary...

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team RedCow:

I know of one geocacher who got so frustrated over the disapproval of his police car cache that he quit the game. What was never mentioned in the postings about his cache was that the cache owner was himself a police officer. He naturally took the disapproval of his cache quite personally.


Since he doesn't own a GPS, and only caches with his cousin, I'm guessing his geocaching is somewhat limited anyway. Seems like he wasn't really all that interested if he did quit just because his cache was turned down. So what if he was a police officer? His cache didnt meet the posted guidelines for placing a cache, plain and simple. If it was a physical cache placed against the rules that somehow slipped by, it would have been archived just the same. It's nothing against police officers, they more then anyone should understand doing things by the rules.

If you cant play by the rules here, there are at least 2 other geocaching sites out there that are just BEGGING for new members. Or feel free to shell out thousands of dollars a month yourself to run your own website this size. What's the big deal?

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team RedCow:

What was never mentioned in the postings about his cache was that the cache owner was himself a police officer. He naturally took the disapproval of his cache quite personally.


I do have to say too that as an officer he should be able to read the rules and understand that when it says, "For example, nothing that is mobile can be a locationless cache" that that would mean a car. The rules of law say that I cannot break into cars, so I don't. If I do, he will arrest me, right? That is because his bosses say that is what he is suppose to do. Well, the rules say that cars cannot be caches and the bosses of the site say that those caches should be archived if submitted. What is so hard to understand about that??? I have a HIGH respect for the police and military but I am surprised that following the rules would make him so mad that he would abandon a game.

quote:
Originally posted by Team RedCow:

What I suggest is that a committee be formed that geocachers can appeal to if they disagree with the approval/disapproval decision.


I guess if that committee doesn't agree then we form another one, right? The guidelines for the site are pretty simple to follow. Sorry to differ, but the forums are a huge community of your peers. It seems like that would be the ultimate committee for your appeal. What you propose is another small committee that will create another problem regarding "whether the select few should have total authority over the approval of caches."
Link to comment

Hey, I've had a couple denied and I haven't quit. One was dangerous and likely to lead someone into doing something illegal. I'm thinking about a way to fix it so it's not dangerous or illegal, but that's a different story. The other is still in the works and I plan on making it comply without ruining the spirit of it.

 

You see, this commitee, or appeals board, would have to have rules to go by. They couldn't just make it up as they go. If the original approver went by the rules, then outcome would be the same.

 

Hey, I'm not happy that I didn't get my cache approved as it was, but rules are rules. As soon as I get my GPS back I'm going to comply.

 

On the other hand, if you want to try to change the rules, be my guest. I've got a couple I'd like tweaked.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

The issue with the police car cache was just an example. Haggling over whether or not his cache should have been approved isn't the issue. Chasing rabbits like that to get a discussion completely off the issue at hand has been tried before.

In addition, claiming that the forums accomplish the same thing as an appeals committee is rubbish. You can discuss something to death, but when it's all over nothing changes. It's still up to the approval nazis to make the decision. Or are some of you afraid of letting go of your little oligarchy??? Absolute power still corrupts absolutely in the 21st century.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team RedCow:

... still up to the approval nazis to make the decision ...


 

You just can't throw the term nazis out there. It degrades the rest of what you are saying. I think most people just click off when that term is used to describe someone else. People can deal with name calling to some degree but I think most can't go that far.

 

I seem to recall that in the very early days of the internet and message boards (pre web) it was an unspoken rule that the thread had gone as far as it could go and be productive when someone called someone else a nazi.

 

I understand your frustration. I understand you are trying to make some positive changes. I am not saying a agree or disagree with you. At the very least I think your views should be heard. But calling people nazis does not help your position in anyway.

 

Just my opinion and yes like our backsides everybody has one.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team RedCow:

It's still up to the approval nazis to make the decision.


 

Can you cite an example of disapproved caches that normally would have been approved? If there is some kind of great conspiracy, I'd like to see evidence of it.

 

BTW, I'm not one of the volunteers.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team RedCow:

The issue with the police car cache was just an example. Haggling over whether or not his cache should have been approved isn't the issue. Chasing rabbits like that to get a discussion completely off the issue at hand has been tried before.

In addition, claiming that the forums accomplish the same thing as an appeals committee is rubbish. You can discuss something to death, but when it's all over nothing changes. It's still up to the approval nazis to make the decision. Or are some of you afraid of letting go of your little oligarchy??? Absolute power still corrupts absolutely in the 21st century.


The name calling sure doesn't help your case!

The fact that is that many who replied to you are not admins. Hell, I'm not even a charter member. We have no power trip to hang on to, yet we still seem to disagree with you.

You used the police car cache as an example, and it was explained how it was handled. Thats actually a very good example of how well the forums here work. It's a case of a cache that didnt really meet the rules slipping through the cracks. That fact was pointed out by forum members. The pros and cons of it were discussed, and in the end it was archived. There are also plenty of examples to be found in the foroms of just the opposite. Caches that were declined, but after discussion among the forum members they were allowed. There are some (like Jeff's) that other forum members helped him with how to make the cache comply with the rules, and in the end, I beleive it will be a better cache for it. (Is that one posted yet, Jeff?)

Geocaching has changed and evolved over the years, mostly because of input from the forums.

What I do'nt understand is how you feel some "appeal board" made up of volenteer cachers is any different then the pool of volenteer cachers who decide if a cache should be approved or not in the 1st place?

Lastly. I'm not sure where the idea that geocaching.com is a democracy comes from. I think most of us know what the ".com" means after "www.geocaching" in the url. We play the game on this website by the rules as set forth by the owners of the website. If we don't want to play in their sandbox, we are free to go play elsewhere. If you would like the URLs for other sandboxes, just ask. Course, then you will still need to play their game by their rules, but thats life. Only way you get to play by your rules is to make your own website.

Why is it that some people have such a problem with rules?

Life started with just one rule. Don't eat the apple off that tree. Thats it, do anything else but that. And we couldn't. Guess its pretty naive to expect some people to follow harder rules then that.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

There used to be - and I don't see it any more - a forum area for admins to post polls about specific caches and whether they should be approved or not. Perhaps if this area were reinstated, and open for anyone to post, it might take the place of a formal appeal board. Jeremy & co. usually go with what the majority wants.

 

I don't think a formal appeal board is the answer.

 

ntga_button.gifweb-lingbutton.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

What I do'nt understand is how you feel some "appeal board" made up of volonteer cachers is any different then the pool of volunteer cachers who decide if a cache should be approved or not in the 1st place?


Exactly what I was thinking...

Would the appeal board use the same guidelines as the approvers icon_confused.gif Assuming they would, how are they going to do anything different??

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

What approval board?? Seems to me that every cache is approved (or disapproved) by ONE volunteer. One person's opinion against another. So what's wrong with getting second opinions? I wouldn't have an issue with it if there was some indication that the approval process was more than just one volunteer's opinion whether or not a cache is a good one or not. Nor did anyone say this was a democracy, but in a sense that's part of my point. This game has grown beyond just a few enthusiasts grouped together via a website. There are thousands now, but consider how many opinions are actually represented via this forum. Compared to how many are geocaching world-wide this forum represents a very small percentage of opinions.

 

Sorry about the nazi comment. Frustration slipping out.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team RedCow:

What approval board?? Seems to me that every cache is approved (or disapproved) by ONE volunteer. One person's opinion against another. So what's wrong with getting second opinions? I wouldn't have an issue with it if there was some indication that the approval process was more


As I understand it, the approvers have their own hidden forum here, Any cache that is questionable is discussed there among all the approvers. Thats why sometimes a cache takes several days to be approved/denied. If your cache was denied, and you indicate to the approver that you believe it does meet all the guidelines, it would also be brought there for discussion. The approvers themselves can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

I know the approvers talk amongst themselves; they indicated so when they denied my last cache. This is also evidenced by why ~Erik~ knew about it and he wasn't the one that denied it.

 

I don't know the mechanism behind the scenes, but I'm sure the approvers want more caches out there. The thing is, it has to conform to the rules. Sure, a few get through that don't conform, but you can't complain when your cache didn't slip through the cracks.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

Team RedCow, you have many of your facts wrong. There are currently 16 active admins. Some are more active than others, and we divide the work up geographically so that those most familiar with the caches and issues in a given area can do approval for that area. This might explain why you are used to seeing only one admin.

 

Cache approval or rejection does usually fall to the decision of a single approver, simply because we can't possibly discuss each and every cache that comes through every day. There are way too many submissions to ever do that, even if we had 100 admins. Generally, it's only those caches that sit squarely in a gray area or that the reviewing admin is otherwise unsure of that get brought up immediately in the admin forums. If your cache takes a while to get approved, and you see others in your area that were posted after it get approved before it, this is likely what is happening.

 

In any case, everyone has the right to appeal any decision made on his or her cache. If you appeal to the reviewer, and the cache does not outright break any guidelines, then the cache is brought to the attention of the rest of the admins in the admin forums for a targeted discussion. This is where we hash out any potential issues with the cache.

 

Even if you receive a rejection after the admin discussion, you have an option. It has been discussed here already, and it is to bring up the issue in the general forums and put it to the "vote" of your geocaching peers. Believe it or not, but we do listen to what everyone has to say in these forums. Our "job", after all, is to give the geocaching community as a whole what it wants.

 

We honestly don't want to come across as contentious jerks. We would prefer to work invisibly in the background helping to make the web site work smoothly. If you or others you know routinely find yourselves having trouble getting your caches through, though, maybe you should step back and ask yourselves why. It could be that you have creative ideas that push the envelope and will make us rethink the guidelines. Or, it could be that your caches create issues that in some way harm the activity as a whole. I think that our current process does a good job of making this determination.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

OK. Fair enough. If, in fact, there is some discussion among reviewers so that no single individual is dictating the game to the thousands of us playing it, then I can live with that. (Like I really had a choice. icon_wink.gif ) Just one question, though. If I had a cache that I wanted to dispute (and I don't, for those of you who will assume that I have an agenda in all this.) how does one take it to a reviewer, whoever that is?

Link to comment

Look down at the bottom of the page on the five caches you have hidden. Down at the very bottom you will see the name of the administrator who approved your cache. That will give you some of them. The other thing to do if you have a question is to write to the contact at geocaching email address. It says "contact us" under the left menu on each page. You can click that and if you click "links" down at the bottom of every page on the site the email link is at the very top of that "links" page. If someone is reviewing your cache and it is on hold they will contact you to let you know why.

Link to comment

This sounds a lot like going to Mom and asking if you can go to Jimmy's and she says no. So you go and ask Dad.

 

I think the approval board does as good as they can with the information they have. I don't think I've ever heard of a cache not being approved because someone on the approval board was having a bad day, or you called them a nazi in some thread.

 

Generally I would say from what I've seen, the caches that do not get approved are ones that either don't have enough info or are not within the published guidelines. It's kind of up to you to make sure you provide the right info, and from personal experience - if you don't... you're usually given a chance to update it if they have an inkling of what's going on. But if they can't even make an educated guess as to what you're getting at with the info supplied... they have to go with what they know.

 

The best thing that can happen is that people become more descriptive and informative. And tolerant. icon_smile.gif If your cache is declined, it's not because they have a grudge. You always have the option to retool it and re-submit.

 

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

Flat_MiGeo_A88.gif

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