Jump to content

Open Caching


jpamusher
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I tried their Android App today and it worked flawlessly. Think it might be a battery hog though.
It's the GPS antenna that's the battery hog. Any app that keeps the GPS antenna on is going to drain the battery.

Compared to using the Geocaching App my battery was gone faster.

Link to comment

I never said I won a coin from them. I commented that they were giving away coins trackable on this site. If I am incorrect, it would not be the first time. I have been a long time, die hard Garmin supporter and user. I have owned 3 yellow eTrex units, a Vista, a 60CSx, an Oregon and a Nuvi for the car. I own two versions of MapSource so I could get turn by turn street maps on my 60CSx and Oregon, plus I owned Topo Maps for my Vista. The fact that they opened this site has disappointed me so much that I will never buy anything from them ever again. My next GPS will be a DeLorme.

The next time I need a GPS I will be looking long and hard at other brands as I'm going to have a hard time buying a Garmin again.

 

My primary concern regarding Garmin is the policy decisions they made with OC.com that I consider to be detrimental to the game of geocaching. Having said that, realistically they are irrelevant to the game of geocaching as they aren't being used to find caches.

 

In April, only 292 OC-listed caches were found in the entire world. This works out to about 10 finds a day on OC caches - in the entire world. Of those 292 caches that were found, only 57 were unique to OC.com.

 

This is after Garmin has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on programmers, websites, advertising, and all the free swag they've been pushing out. In reality, they are losing significant amounts of money on this project with little to show for it.

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

My next GPS will probably be a DeLorme. But that has more to do with how disappointed I am with my Oregon than the poorly built listing site.

I really lost respect for Garmin with their Colorado fiasco. Talk about "beta test"! That was a product that never should have been released. Early Oregon was like that too, as I recall. Eventually they fixed that, but pretty much abandoned their Colorado customers. I traded mine in on an older design, the 60CSx and love that, but I don't think I want any of their newer developments.

 

It is no coincidence that the person behind the Colorado development is the same one in charge of Opencaching development.

Link to comment

I think Garmin really missed the boat with opencaching.

 

Instead of creating an alternate listing site, they should have created a variation of the game.

 

For example, they could have used the Wherigo concept and created a caching adventure where there was no need for log books and containers. You load the "cache coordinates" into the GPS and when you reach that location, the GPS recognizes it and automatically marks it found in the GPS. When you get back home, hook the GPS to the site and it marks them found. The problem with Wherigo is the lua language is not very secure and almost anyone can 'break" the cartridge. Presumably, Garmin could build everything into the firmware and make it much more secure. No log books, no containers, no false logging.

 

I am sure it is not quite that simple but it is just one small idea they could have utilized to expand the game.

 

We don't need an alternate listing site, as other wannabes have shown.

Link to comment

 

In April, only 292 OC-listed caches were found in the entire world. This works out to about 10 finds a day on OC caches - in the entire world. Of those 292 caches that were found, only 57 were unique to OC.com.

 

This is after Garmin has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on programmers, websites, advertising, and all the free swag they've been pushing out. In reality, they are losing significant amounts of money on this project with little to show for it.

 

Only 292 finds, eh? That's about what I would have figured. I don't know where you find this information on their so-called BETA website, It usually doesn't even work for me. Oh by the way, it completely erased my only find log. It was there for like a month, then next time I looked, poof, all gone. There will be no 2nd find log, by the way. :lol:

Link to comment

[Only 292 finds, eh? That's about what I would have figured. I don't know where you find this information on their so-called BETA website, It usually doesn't even work for me. Oh by the way, it completely erased my only find log. It was there for like a month, then next time I looked, poof, all gone. There will be no 2nd find log, by the way. :lol:

I download a snapshot of their database via GSAK every month. I (primarily) use the filter feature and the 'Totals' macro to crunch the results. So far there hasn't been anything exciting to report.

 

I believe a previous commenter touched on their core problem - they spent a lot of money creating a website with fewer feature and less content. Instead of recreating GC.com they would have been better off creating a different GPS-based game & website.

 

IMO, they would have gotten the most bang for the marketing buck by working more closely with GC than competing against it.

Link to comment

[Only 292 finds, eh? That's about what I would have figured. I don't know where you find this information on their so-called BETA website, It usually doesn't even work for me. Oh by the way, it completely erased my only find log. It was there for like a month, then next time I looked, poof, all gone. There will be no 2nd find log, by the way. :lol:

I download a snapshot of their database via GSAK every month. I (primarily) use the filter feature and the 'Totals' macro to crunch the results. So far there hasn't been anything exciting to report.

 

I believe a previous commenter touched on their core problem - they spent a lot of money creating a website with fewer feature and less content. Instead of recreating GC.com they would have been better off creating a different GPS-based game & website.

 

IMO, they would have gotten the most bang for the marketing buck by working more closely with GC than competing against it.

 

Fewer features and less content, exactly!! I earlier mentioned how Terracaching and the other opencaching sites (not related to Garmin) were programmed by Geocachers. Heck, this website was coded by Geocachers. :lol:

 

Thanks for the info how you did that. I was probably one of the first people to post a find log. Well, try at least. It was within the first couple of days, and it didn't want to take manual find logs. Everyone was just uploading GPX's for hides and finds. I eventually got it to go through, it was there for a while, then it disappeared.

Link to comment

 

I believe a previous commenter touched on their core problem - they spent a lot of money creating a website with fewer feature and less content. Instead of recreating GC.com they would have been better off creating a different GPS-based game & website.

 

 

is that comment based on evidence or just speculation?

 

i personally believe is the latter

 

and what exactly is the point of discussing Opencaching here and not on their site, why not make an account there and tell them to their "face" rather than talking behind their back?

Link to comment

I believe a previous commenter touched on their core problem - they spent a lot of money creating a website with fewer feature and less content. Instead of recreating GC.com they would have been better off creating a different GPS-based game & website.

 

 

is that comment based on evidence or just speculation?

 

i personally believe is the latter

 

and what exactly is the point of discussing Opencaching here and not on their site, why not make an account there and tell them to their "face" rather than talking behind their back?

Oh, I doubt their back is facing us.

Link to comment

While browsing thru my latest issue of Backpacker magazine,I came across an ad for a site called opencaching.com It is another website for logging geocaches and is run by Garmin. I`m just wondering what the point is of having another geocaching site since you can`t view any of the caches logged on geocaching.com here and can`t track any travel bugs? It would seem that one universal site such as geocaching.com is all that is needed.

 

I don't understand why you are asking this here. If you want to know why the creators and users of that site think there is a need for another geocaching site, wouldn't it make more sense to ask them?

Link to comment

is that comment based on evidence or just speculation?

 

i personally believe is the latter

Is that comment based on evidence or just speculation? smile.gif

 

To answer your question: As for the cost...experience. Graphic artists, programmers, DBA's, marketing, the iron (rented or purchased), bandwidth, lawyers, and the administrative overhead all have costs associated with them.

 

and what exactly is the point of discussing Opencaching here and not on their site, why not make an account there and tell them to their "face" rather than talking behind their back?

 

Generally, I agree. GeoGeeBee's above response is spot on. The questions that the OP asked are probably best asked on their forums. Of course, a question like that might be considered trolling over there. (Or here for that matter.)

Link to comment

While browsing thru my latest issue of Backpacker magazine,I came across an ad for a site called opencaching.com It is another website for logging geocaches and is run by Garmin. I`m just wondering what the point is of having another geocaching site since you can`t view any of the caches logged on geocaching.com here and can`t track any travel bugs? It would seem that one universal site such as geocaching.com is all that is needed.

 

I don't understand why you are asking this here. If you want to know why the creators and users of that site think there is a need for another geocaching site, wouldn't it make more sense to ask them?

 

Interesting perspective you and t4e bring up. I honestly didn't even think about it that way. Oh, no biggie, like Knowschad said, I'm sure they're watching. And I also agree it could be considered trolling over there. Especially if you had, like me, 0 hides and 0 finds over there, and had no plan on increasing those numbers. :o

Link to comment

 

Oh, I doubt their back is facing us.

 

i agree with you, but that's lurking and everyone is entitled to do that

 

and perhaps would have even been OKish to discuss it here if they didn't have their own forums or medium that facilitated discussion...my point is that they actually do have one, so even if they are lurking here technically we are still talking behind their back

 

is that comment based on evidence or just speculation?

 

i personally believe is the latter

Is that comment based on evidence or just speculation? smile.gif

 

To answer your question: As for the cost...experience. Graphic artists, programmers, DBA's, marketing, the iron (rented or purchased), bandwidth, lawyers, and the administrative overhead all have costs associated with them.

 

 

experience doesn't equate certainty, perhaps they found someone that volunteered to design the website, we don't know either way...so its all speculation :P

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

Oh, I doubt their back is facing us.

 

i agree with you, but that's lurking and everyone is entitled to do that

 

and perhaps would have even been OKish to discuss it here if they didn't have their own forums or medium that facilitated discussion...my point is that they actually do have one, so even if they are lurking here technically we are still talking behind their back

 

is that comment based on evidence or just speculation?

 

i personally believe is the latter

Is that comment based on evidence or just speculation? smile.gif

 

To answer your question: As for the cost...experience. Graphic artists, programmers, DBA's, marketing, the iron (rented or purchased), bandwidth, lawyers, and the administrative overhead all have costs associated with them.

 

 

experience doesn't equate certainty, perhaps they found someone that volunteered to design the website, we don't know either way...so its all speculation :P

 

I don't think they have anybody on their forums that would be qualified to answer any serious questions like these anyway. I see very little official chatter in their forums, and what little I have seen seems to be coming from one individual who seems to be the forum moderator.

Link to comment

I've read some of these posts bashing Garmin in general and have to put in my 2cents.

 

I've owned and used a number of Garmin GPS's at this point. I find their products really great (although I have never used a Colorado- hey, no one's perfect).

 

I bought a used broken Oregon and I was totally impressed that Garmin's tech support tried for an HOUR on the phone to fix it for free. I've heard other GPS companies that won't talk on the phone at all.

When it couldn't be fixed on the phone, or connected to the computer using links he sent me, they had me send it in and for a very reasonable price repaired it, or more accurately I should say, sent me a remanufactured one in a turn around time of just one day.

 

I was totally impressed with their service and love my "new" Oregon.

 

I think Garmin makes the best products on the market.

 

Now their geocaching website is another matter.

 

The best thing about it is that it has given the people banned from Groundspeak somewhere to go. A lot of those people are hostile people we really don't want over here. Not all of them of course, but a lot of them were banned for being hostile and being trouble-makers so it's good they have somewhere to go and not be trying to get onto this site again.

 

I don't think they really thought it through well to launch that site. I agree with those that say they should have gotten together with Groundspeak rather than try to compete with a site that they just can't compete with.

 

I do think their site is detrimental to geocaching as a game.

I have already stated my reasons why I think this.

Link to comment

 

I believe a previous commenter touched on their core problem - they spent a lot of money creating a website with fewer feature and less content. Instead of recreating GC.com they would have been better off creating a different GPS-based game & website.

 

 

is that comment based on evidence or just speculation?

 

i personally believe is the latter

 

and what exactly is the point of discussing Opencaching here and not on their site, why not make an account there and tell them to their "face" rather than talking behind their back?

Well, quite frankly their site isn't worth creating an account on.

Link to comment

They are spending a lot of money in the outdoor recreation magazine area. The thing that they forgot was that people met other people through Geocaching.com, became freinds, enjoy activities together and have a loyalty to the brand that brought them together. Yesterday I was out with 2 friends and the 3 of us had a great day, we didn't cache, but without Geocaching we would not have known each other. Kind of hard to break that bond.

Link to comment

A few days ago we received an email from what appeared to be just another GC.com member. It was brief and asked if we cross reference our caches with OpenCaching.com using a certain handle (not our own but very similar). I was perplexed so I clicked on the link to opencaching.com. There I saw ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE of our 237 owned caches listed on the site !

 

I wrote back and said no we did not post our caches on the site nor did we give anyone else permission to do so.

 

This person wrote back and was VERY apologetic. He then stated he was an "Ambassador," of opencaching.com. and stated he would send immediate notification to have our cache listings removed from the site. It seems 123 of our caches passed through the review process and were posted on the site without any verification/permission from us !!

 

This person noticed the huge amount of caches listed and wrote to us to make sure we gave permission.

 

2 hours later our 123 caches were removed from opencaching.com.

 

I was livid when I saw so many of our caches listed on the site but this GC.com member/OpenCaching.com Ambassador was so nice, as was "the site itself," who wrote to us later, I was just thankful our caches were removed.

Link to comment

Another member here had their caches listed on that site without permission using a name very similar to the name used here. When looking for the profile of the lister nothing could be found. When an email was sent to OC.com the caches where quickly removed. Make one wonder about that other site.

Link to comment

Another member here had their caches listed on that site without permission using a name very similar to the name used here. When looking for the profile of the lister nothing could be found. When an email was sent to OC.com the caches where quickly removed. Make one wonder about that other site.

 

I think they've done a pretty good job in that case a couple weeks ago, and in this one here. Very nice of the OC ambassador to email TeamSeakandweshallfind. There have been many incidents we haven't heard about, where the peer reviewers have caught people trying to list other people's caches. Now don't be thinking I've become an OC supporter, or anything. :lol:

 

Strange, not even a contest going on. :huh:

Link to comment

I registered my user name on OC a while ago, just out of paranoia, and every now and then I check in on their forums. They're getting better at dealing with the cache-piracy issues, but they need to improve their track record on stopping them from happening in the first place.

 

Even if the site had reviewers, that would be a difficult proposition. It seems to be an attack on Groundspeak mainly due to the number of caches at Groundspeak's site vs Opencachinc.com | .us | .ca

 

The same problem can in fact go the other way, it it just statistically far less likely.

 

In life it is rarely about preventing every possible problem from occurring, it's what you do about it when it does happen that counts.

 

OpenCaching has been removing the "stolen" listings/accounts once they become aware of the problem

 

Full disclosure: I am the OpenCaching.com Ambassador for Ontario

Link to comment

One of the reasons of the piracy was that OC was having a contest to win a GPS. You had to put out I forgot how many caches to qualify to win. Well what faster way but to steal the ideas from caches already listed and placed by a GC member.

I had to report one cacher who placed a cache on High School property in front of the office. Our local reviewer archived it. Well that cacher then submitted the same cache on Opencaching. I reported that one too and they archived it realizing they needed to make a guideline for that.

I had a lot of caches on there but I archived them all when I was being harassed by one of the same cachers who was harassing me here in GC.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

As a active member and peer reviewer on the site every day for the last year I have seen alot of things happen there. I'm not here supporting the site, I'm here as a geocacher and waymarker that has listings on more than one site. As a peer reviewer on the other site I check cross listed caches to make sure they are listed by the cache owner. There is even a option on the reviewer page now to cast a negative vote until the user that cross listed the cache is the owner, a feature that the community feels is needed. Garmin won't admit it, but the sweepstakes did bring in some stolen listings. I remember over 100 or so that have been caught, many were never published. Some were theft, some were mistakes made by users that did not know how to use the site. Many peer reviewers don't know much about the site or it's listing guidelines either, but still vote, any member can. Most of the stolen ones were cross listed in the beginning of the site when listings were published without any review, but now there is peer review. The peer review system there does not always work, but when theft is proven the site has always taken quick action. Many of us that are members there are not banned members here, but also very active members here also. I just can't see myself as a member that enjoys geocaching here as much as I do, and being a peer reviewer on another site let another members listings be published without the owners permission. I have done the same as many members here have done that joined the other site and cross listed our caches, I have archived them. I choose to keep the two sites seperate.

Link to comment

I registered my user name on OC a while ago, just out of paranoia, and every now and then I check in on their forums. They're getting better at dealing with the cache-piracy issues, but they need to improve their track record on stopping them from happening in the first place.

 

Even if the site had reviewers, that would be a difficult proposition. It seems to be an attack on Groundspeak mainly due to the number of caches at Groundspeak's site vs Opencachinc.com | .us | .ca

 

The same problem can in fact go the other way, it it just statistically far less likely.

 

In life it is rarely about preventing every possible problem from occurring, it's what you do about it when it does happen that counts.

 

OpenCaching has been removing the "stolen" listings/accounts once they become aware of the problem

 

Full disclosure: I am the OpenCaching.com Ambassador for Ontario

Please don't put Garmin's opencaching.com in the same sentence as opencaching.us or opencaching.ca. As you know, the latter two are not part of Garmin's site, and as far as I know, have never been a problem.

 

I agree that there seems to be an attack on Groundspeak from some members of the Garmin site, but I believe the issue has to do with the members, and sour grapes, It also has to do with Garmin offering prizes to cache owners, encouraging the members to bulk load a bunch of caches, even if they don't own them.

Link to comment

Even if the site had reviewers,

 

As a active member and peer reviewer on the site every day for the last year I have seen alot of things happen there.

 

:blink:

 

Peer review isn't the same thing as Volunteer Reviewers.

Managing how 200 Volunteer Reviewers apply the guidelines and review process is challenging enough. Managing 100,000 Peer Reviewers is quite the other beast.

Though the site has an interesting solution where more established cachers are weighed more in the process than new cachers (helps prevent a person from setting up a couple sock puppets to approve their own cache).

Link to comment

 

Please don't put Garmin's opencaching.com in the same sentence as opencaching.us or opencaching.ca. As you know, the latter two are not part of Garmin's site, and as far as I know, have never been a problem.

 

I agree that there seems to be an attack on Groundspeak from some members of the Garmin site, but I believe the issue has to do with the members, and sour grapes, It also has to do with Garmin offering prizes to cache owners, encouraging the members to bulk load a bunch of caches, even if they don't own them.

 

I put them in the same sentence as they are alternate listing sites. I was spelling out it's not necessarily a "Garmin" problem. Same as several others that tend to get edited out of posts here so I won't list them all.

 

I agree that the "free GPS" promotion was a pretty good motivator for the "listing piracy" but it can and most certainly will happen on the other sites in the future, though most likely in much smaller amounts. You can bet if, say, Terracaching or Opencaching.us was offering prizes (see I did it again) valued at $200 each for listings there would be rampant listing thefts over there too.

 

 

Link to comment

OpenCaching.com One Year On:

 

http://www.notaboutt...om-one-year-on/

 

That's one perspective... from a Volunteer Reviewer, so grab a bag of salt.

There's also another side, which hopefully will have the same level of detail.

 

 

What does the fact that he is (or was?) a volunteer reviewer (note the word, "volunteer") have to do with anything? His observations match up pretty darned well with my own. He also states quite clearly where he is only speculating.

Link to comment

What does the fact that he is (or was?) a volunteer reviewer (note the word, "volunteer") have to do with anything? His observations match up pretty darned well with my own. He also states quite clearly where he is only speculating.

 

Really? I have to spell that out?

 

Yes, you do. He isn't paid for what he does. Where is the conflict of interest?

Link to comment

What does the fact that he is (or was?) a volunteer reviewer (note the word, "volunteer") have to do with anything? His observations match up pretty darned well with my own. He also states quite clearly where he is only speculating.

 

Really? I have to spell that out?

 

Yes, you do. He isn't paid for what he does. Where is the conflict of interest?

 

He's not paid but clearly he favours Groundspeak's implementation - and that very well could be at least partly due to his "elevated status" over here on Geocaching.com

But if you want to get into a fanboy vs fanboy discussion feel free to PM me. This discussion will go off topic real fast if we hash it out here.

 

What I pointed out was that he's a reviewer, and take what he said with a grain of salt. That means be skeptical and don't assume it's fair just because it's on the Internet.

Same as you wouldn't take a comparison of Garmin vs Magellan GPS units from, say, an Opencaching Ambassador without double checking it.

 

 

Link to comment

What does the fact that he is (or was?) a volunteer reviewer (note the word, "volunteer") have to do with anything? His observations match up pretty darned well with my own. He also states quite clearly where he is only speculating.

 

Really? I have to spell that out?

 

Yes, you do. He isn't paid for what he does. Where is the conflict of interest?

 

He's not paid but clearly he favours Groundspeak's implementation - and that very well could be at least partly due to his "elevated status" over here on Geocaching.com

But if you want to get into a fanboy vs fanboy discussion feel free to PM me. This discussion will go off topic real fast if we hash it out here.

 

What I pointed out was that he's a reviewer, and take what he said with a grain of salt. That means be skeptical and don't assume it's fair just because it's on the Internet.

Same as you wouldn't take a comparison of Garmin vs Magellan GPS units from, say, an Opencaching Ambassador without double checking it.

 

 

I repeat: His observations match up pretty darned well with my own.

Link to comment

 

I repeat: His observations match up pretty darned well with my own.

 

And do not match up 100% with my own. He got peer review completely wrong for example.

Yes you can see cache details before publication, just like reviewers for a Waymarking category can see the way mark details before publication.

 

You can create an account and peer review right away. That doesn't mean much, as you'll have a very low "score". It takes more than one "vote" to approve a cache, and established cachers get more "weight" in the vote.

So you can set up three sock puppet accounts that give your cache a "thumbs up" and one very established cacher can trump those.

 

Frankly I look forward to Garmin's response to that article.

Link to comment

 

I repeat: His observations match up pretty darned well with my own.

 

 

I would say they mesh with mine as well. And for full disclosure, I am about as far from being a VR as you can get. :)

 

.

 

Well then, I guess your local Opencaching ambassador has some work to do. :o

 

 

Frankly I look forward to Garmin's response to that article.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Garmin's "response" is going to be to answer reader submitted questions. Hopefully including mine, "whats up with buying the Opencaching.com domain in September 2010, when the Opencaching network was established in 2003, and 12 Country nodes were online before the purchase".

Link to comment

 

If I'm not mistaken, Garmin's "response" is going to be to answer reader submitted questions. Hopefully including mine, "whats up with buying the Opencaching.com domain in September 2010, when the Opencaching network was established in 2003, and 12 Country nodes were online before the purchase".

 

I'll let Garmin answer that one.

Though it is the one thing that bugs me about the site - the whole OC/OX confusion. They'd probably have double the adoption rate if they'd just picked a different name.

 

Link to comment

 

I repeat: His observations match up pretty darned well with my own.

 

And do not match up 100% with my own. He got peer review completely wrong for example.

Yes you can see cache details before publication, just like reviewers for a Waymarking category can see the way mark details before publication.

 

You can create an account and peer review right away. That doesn't mean much, as you'll have a very low "score". It takes more than one "vote" to approve a cache, and established cachers get more "weight" in the vote.

So you can set up three sock puppet accounts that give your cache a "thumbs up" and one very established cacher can trump those.

 

Frankly I look forward to Garmin's response to that article.

 

Hehe! Don't tick of a cacher with a large "score".

Link to comment

I tried to give Garmincaching an honest try. I met with a bunch of distrust and open animosity because of my participation here. But I tried to stick it out. In the end I found it to be lacking in function as well as driven by a community of hate. It seemed like the one thing most members had in common was a hate of Groundspeak, not a love for caching.

 

I've long been a supporter of alternate listing sites. But that is because I like to see other creative ideas and healthy competition. Opencaching.com could have been just that. Unfortunately they seem to accept the hate some disgruntled cachers have for Groundspeak as a good basis for their community. In the end I decided it just wasn't for me.

Link to comment

I tried to give Garmincaching an honest try. I met with a bunch of distrust and open animosity because of my participation here. But I tried to stick it out. In the end I found it to be lacking in function as well as driven by a community of hate. It seemed like the one thing most members had in common was a hate of Groundspeak, not a love for caching.

 

 

Not uncommon for people to hate a winner and seek their own solution. The general term used for the splintering off of members of any organization for what ever reason is "Balkanization."

Link to comment

Even if the site had reviewers,

 

As a active member and peer reviewer on the site every day for the last year I have seen alot of things happen there.

 

:blink:

 

Peer review isn't the same thing as Volunteer Reviewers.

Managing how 200 Volunteer Reviewers apply the guidelines and review process is challenging enough. Managing 100,000 Peer Reviewers is quite the other beast.

Though the site has an interesting solution where more established cachers are weighed more in the process than new cachers (helps prevent a person from setting up a couple sock puppets to approve their own cache).

I first learned about peer reviewing as a Waymarker, and I enjoy it. Like where creating Challanges is one of the PM benefits here, it is also a added benefit on the Waymarking site. You can manage a category there and publish other members listings. It's really quite cool, and one of the many reasons I like to keep my account here PM.

Link to comment

 

I first learned about peer reviewing as a Waymarker, and I enjoy it. Like where creating Challanges is one of the PM benefits here, it is also a added benefit on the Waymarking site. You can manage a category there and publish other members listings. It's really quite cool, and one of the many reasons I like to keep my account here PM.

 

I do like the way peer review was implemented on Waymarking, with the category leaders who can help keep things on the same page.

Not so keen on the initial roll out for Geocaching challenges where people who had a different agenda piled on to vote down everything - that killed a bunch of decent challenges in the cross fire.

 

Things are a little more sane now on the Geocaching challenges, just as things are getting more sane on the OpenCaching peer review. The "weighted" votes helps diminish the effect of people who are not really into OpenCaching but want to vote things down for the thrill (or whatever)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...