Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
t4e

Charities in Event Listing

Recommended Posts

I've seen not one person argue, especially in this thread, that they deserve the right above any others - that they're somehow entitled - to post certain content that others are not, or not be denied what others are. People need to absolutely stop saying that. Right now.

Words words words. "entitled" is the new "elitist"

 

Like I said before, the little grey things get the hottest controversy, because the big things are pretty much cut and dry.

 

Otherwise, also fully agreed with the above points.

 

And now that most everyone's taken a shot at the off-topic bullseye, can we please keep this thread on topic? (the original purpose for which has been resolved, to whatever degree of satisfaction one takes)

 

Else if you must, start a new thread to rant about complaining.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Odd, I didn't start this topic, yet strangely I feel as though I am being told to simmer down for standing up to what I feel is an inconsistency in the application of the guidelines by reviewers. Dr. House, your minimization of my query is at best a deflection to serve the purpose of your post. I think that the topic is quite important to all and has been brought up before, since consistency can go a long way to ensuring this game is fair and therefore fun for all. If the topic was originally started by me and was strictly about the inconsistency, I think it might have had a different and perhaps more valuable outcome.

 

However, due to my appeal to Groundspeak, I feel that they have understood my issue and have at least acknowledged that it is a problem and have stated they are working on solutions with all the reviewers. In my mind that is a win.

 

I made a point a long while ago to stay away from these forums because I know they eventually degrade into name calling and petty arguments. Nobody wins, everybody loses.

Edited by GeeOCachers

Share this post


Link to post

Odd, I didn't start this topic, yet strangely I feel as though I am being told to simmer down for standing up to what I feel is an inconsistency in the application of the guidelines by reviewers. I think that topic is quite important, since consistency can go a long way to ensuring this game is fair and therefore fun for all. If the topic was originally started by me and was strictly about the inconsistency, I think it might have had a different and perhaps more valuable outcome.

 

However, due to my appeal to Groundspeak, I feel that they have understood my issue and have at least acknowledged that it is a problem and have stated they are working on solutions with all the reviewers. In my mind that is a win.

 

I made a point a long while ago to stay away from these forums because I know they eventually degrade into name calling and petty arguments. Nobody wins, everybody loses.

 

Agreed. All of it. To all of us.

Share this post


Link to post

Odd, I didn't start this topic, yet strangely I feel as though I am being told to simmer down for standing up to what I feel is an inconsistency in the application of the guidelines by reviewers. Dr. House, your minimization of my query is at best a deflection to serve the purpose of your post. I think that the topic is quite important to all and has been brought up before, since consistency can go a long way to ensuring this game is fair and therefore fun for all. If the topic was originally started by me and was strictly about the inconsistency, I think it might have had a different and perhaps more valuable outcome.

 

However, due to my appeal to Groundspeak, I feel that they have understood my issue and have at least acknowledged that it is a problem and have stated they are working on solutions with all the reviewers. In my mind that is a win.

 

I made a point a long while ago to stay away from these forums because I know they eventually degrade into name calling and petty arguments. Nobody wins, everybody loses.

 

Unfortunately, until Groundspeak develops artificial intelligence reviewer software, you are going to see inconsistencies. Its the nature of the human animal. Even our courts are not immune.

Share this post


Link to post

 

In this country, and many others around the world, we have more pressing issues that affect this game which should garner our attention, but because they don't tend to affect one person solely, we conveniently ignore them. We tend to draw arbitrary lines in the sand which say "I'm OK with that, but not with this" and then debate the merits of those points as though we are somehow "owed" something because we play the game and may or may not pay a menial subscription fee that allows us to enjoy the game more completely.

 

As an example, in this province (Ontario), we have an entity that will not allow for physical placements of caches within their boundaries, and while a portion of your tax dollars goes toward this entity, nobody seems to care about that anymore and would seemingly rather argue the merits of how the needs of a few should take precedence. Why aren't we all up in arms about this entity's policy? Why do people really feel the need to argue incessantly about petty things like the 3 mentioned above?

 

The lines in the sand many folks continue to draw while sweating the petty details about this game reek of petulance and entitlement and stunt the game more than any VR has ever done by following established guidelines.

 

with so much concern about the issue i would suspect you opened a thread about it already, right?

 

also please show me where does it say that my tax dollars entitles me to place caches within their boundaries

 

this entity provides parks, trails and whatnot in exchange for our tax dollars

i would love it if there were caches in there, but they are not obligated to allow it just because our tax dollars go to them

 

how is your concern with Parks Canada and trying to change their rules any different than us here trying to get the rules to be applied consistently?

Share this post


Link to post

 

how is your concern with Parks Canada and trying to change their rules any different than us here trying to get the rules to be applied consistently?

 

Guess again. Parks Canada allows geocaches on their property, provided you follow the landowner's rules.

The Ontario Geocaching Association partnered with Parks Canada for a number of initiatives in 2011, and we're looking forward to more in 2012.

Share this post


Link to post

 

with so much concern about the issue i would suspect you opened a thread about it already, right?

 

Nah... I'm as guilty as the next person on this issue. Actually, until recently, I had very little idea how much effort the OGA placed into this subject a number of years back. It was an amazing effort put forth by those folks which came up a little shorter than I think everyone would one day hope to see.

 

With that said, maybe a thread should be started to discuss the merits of re-opening discussions to see if more can be done. I'm starting to realize that's the only way that many will see that someone has passion about something affecting this game.

 

also please show me where does it say that my tax dollars entitles me to place caches within their boundaries

 

It doesn't. Actually, it states quite the opposite about physical placements. I suppose if we were to stop worrying about petty things and focused our combined efforts toward a common (dare I say "Greater") goal, maybe we could all benefit.

 

this entity provides parks, trails and whatnot in exchange for our tax dollars

i would love it if there were caches in there, but they are not obligated to allow it just because our tax dollars go to them

 

From my perspective, this same statement could also read:

 

Groundspeak provides a website, listing service, voluteers to make it operate and whatnot in exchange for our optional membership fee. i would love it if we were able to list charities, businesses and the like on there, but they are not obligated to allow it just because we wish it of them...

 

The statement I made above was attempting to point out that perhaps the items some choose to make a grand fuss over really aren't all that big when you step back and see the bigger picture. These items seem galringly small to the one item I pointed out. For brevity's sake, I omitted other landowner education, police enforcement co-operation, public awareness of our game and many other things that really are of greater importance to this game whether you choose to accept that or not.

 

how is your concern with Parks Canada and trying to change their rules any different than us here trying to get the rules to be applied consistently?

 

My concern is not with Parks Canada, but rather Ontario Parks, since you asked. Though I could be wrong, Parks Canada does seem to have a policy in place that allows us to more fully enjoy their land by having physical placements inside their land, within certain guidelines, to play our game.

 

The difference lies in where I choose to draw the line with what I'll accept in this game. Seems to me that wanting charities in the listing is small potatoes when there are many other things that we could throw our weight behind.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Nah... I'm as guilty as the next person on this issue. Actually, until recently, I had very little idea how much effort the OGA placed into this subject a number of years back. It was an amazing effort put forth by those folks which came up a little shorter than I think everyone would one day hope to see.

 

With that said, maybe a thread should be started to discuss the merits of re-opening discussions to see if more can be done. I'm starting to realize that's the only way that many will see that someone has passion about something affecting this game.

 

 

i agree, while it may not reach out to the whole community a thread here would reach out to some

 

i didn't know either, until recently about their position

 

My concern is not with Parks Canada, but rather Ontario Parks, since you asked. Though I could be wrong, Parks Canada does seem to have a policy in place that allows us to more fully enjoy their land by having physical placements inside their land, within certain guidelines, to play our game.

 

The difference lies in where I choose to draw the line with what I'll accept in this game. Seems to me that wanting charities in the listing is small potatoes when there are many other things that we could throw our weight behind.

 

right, my bad...fingers sometimes don't like to follow the instructions from the brain

 

I suppose if we were to stop worrying about petty things and focused our combined efforts toward a common (dare I say "Greater") goal, maybe we could all benefit.

 

there is place for everything

same as you have your strong opinions about things, so do i, and i feel i need to express them, more so since we have a right to do so

perhaps what worries me seems petty to you

i never asked for changes to be made to suit my needs, i've always come to the forums to ask for a logical explanation as to why things are done the way they are done

unfortunately seems that those that have the answers, first opted for the "because i say so" and now are adopting a very unprofessional and biased attitude of ignoring any questions i post

 

anyways, it looks like we're taking this thread off topic

 

please do open a thread about Ontario Parks, i would be interested to learn more too

Share this post


Link to post

 

As an example, in this province (Ontario), we have an entity that will not allow for physical placements of caches within their boundaries, and while a portion of your tax dollars goes toward this entity, nobody seems to care about that anymore and would seemingly rather argue the merits of how the needs of a few should take precedence. Why aren't we all up in arms about this entity's policy? Why do people really feel the need to argue incessantly about petty things like the 3 mentioned above?

 

 

It should not be assumed that no one person or group is working on the "entity" issue. There may be some one or group trying to and is just not saying publicly that they are. It will take more than a meeting or a letter to get this "entity" to welcome geocachers as a whole.

 

Also, just because our tax dollars go toward an entity, does not give us the right to use the entity for our sport or activity. Jeep drivers pay tax dollars too but do we want them ripping up the trails with their mud tires and ruining the beauty of the hiking trail? ;) Of course not, but it would be the same arguement for those folks or any other activity. We are not "entitled" to access anything just because our tax dollars help pay for an entity.

Edited by brendah

Share this post


Link to post

 

As an example, in this province (Ontario), we have an entity that will not allow for physical placements of caches within their boundaries, and while a portion of your tax dollars goes toward this entity, nobody seems to care about that anymore and would seemingly rather argue the merits of how the needs of a few should take precedence. Why aren't we all up in arms about this entity's policy? Why do people really feel the need to argue incessantly about petty things like the 3 mentioned above?

 

 

It should not be assumed that no one person or group is working on the "entity" issue. There may be some one or group trying to and is just not saying publicly that they are. It will take more than a meeting or a letter to get this "entity" to welcome geocachers as a whole.

 

 

Absolutely agreed.

 

I have no reason to doubt that the organizations who should be leading the charge are indeed leading the charge. I hope you understand that the example above was merely an attempt to re-gain our collective bearings and perspective about those things that are larger in scope and really should have our passion, rather than pointing fingers saying "Why isn't OGA (or some other representative group) doing their job?" :)

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe a better wording will be "any extra toys will be blown up in a dumpster in front of 20 screaming kids on their birthdays."

 

Sorry.. just catching up on this topic.... Apparently, that would be acceptable LOL

Edited by va3thn

Share this post


Link to post

Charity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the topic right?

Share this post


Link to post

i guess its time i post the promised links since those events took place already

 

please, someone in position of authority enlighten me how those events didn't have to change their description?

 

A Cacher's Christmas 2011

 

Event Cache RDGEO CHRISTMAS PARTY

 

Edmonton Geocachers Christmas Party

 

5th Annual Christmas Potluck Party

 

Christmas Corroboree IX

 

BGS First Annual Caching Christmas 2011

 

Merry ChristmESH

Share this post


Link to post

i guess its time i post the promised links since those events took place already

 

please, someone in position of authority enlighten me how those events didn't have to change their description?

 

A Cacher's Christmas 2011

 

Event Cache RDGEO CHRISTMAS PARTY

 

Edmonton Geocachers Christmas Party

 

5th Annual Christmas Potluck Party

 

Christmas Corroboree IX

 

BGS First Annual Caching Christmas 2011

 

Merry ChristmESH

 

Interesting. OK then, I would now like to comment. The Edmonton Geocachers Christmas Party has a really nice cache page, and I think the animated .gif background image is really cool. :P

Share this post


Link to post

 

Interesting. OK then, I would now like to comment. The Edmonton Geocachers Christmas Party has a really nice cache page, and I think the animated .gif background image is really cool. :P

 

i will recognize your authority as Santa Clause :P

 

funny how nobody has anything to say eh?...sometimes silence speaks volumes though :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

Most likely the same thing happened as with the cache this thread is about. It got approved and then got caught when another one was published and the reviewer noticed it. As speculated in the investigation into the second cache, the reviewer caught it and then looked back at the other one or the owner of the second one pointed out the first one had it.

 

Reviewers are human and can make mistakes. Crying foul doesn't mean or prove anything.

Share this post


Link to post

i guess its time i post the promised links since those events took place already

 

please, someone in position of authority enlighten me how those events didn't have to change their description?

 

A Cacher's Christmas 2011

 

Event Cache RDGEO CHRISTMAS PARTY

 

Edmonton Geocachers Christmas Party

 

5th Annual Christmas Potluck Party

 

Christmas Corroboree IX

 

BGS First Annual Caching Christmas 2011

 

Merry ChristmESH

 

Certainly can't speak for how or why these were allowed to stay active, but hopefully your efforts will go a long way to helping our VRs keep charities off the listings in the future. Seems reasonable that at least the ones mentioned in this thread will be looked over more carefully going forward, and thus, we shouldn't see that placed in the listing for future incarnations of those events.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe the cache police in those areas have better things to do than complain.

 

famous last words

 

 

what I do notice is another thread quickly turning into name calling and whining over something that won't be solved by this kind of behavior. Disect, deflect, and demand all you want. It won't make sny difference because it is Groundspeak that is going to decide and they won't do it here.

 

 

Certainly can't speak for how or why these were allowed to stay active, but hopefully your efforts will go a long way to helping our VRs keep charities off the listings in the future. Seems reasonable that at least the ones mentioned in this thread will be looked over more carefully going forward, and thus, we shouldn't see that placed in the listing for future incarnations of those events.

 

i certainly hope so, because it is extremely hard to come to terms with the inconsistencies, not only from country to country but within our own country from province to province

 

on the one hand we are "fortunate" in Ontario to be ruled with an iron fist, nitpicking on even the smallest and insignificant things, twisting the guidelines to the max meanwhile next door blatant violation of the guidelines are let go

 

it is my hope and desire that there is unity across the board in applying the guidelines

Share this post


Link to post

 

i certainly hope so, because it is extremely hard to come to terms with the inconsistencies, not only from country to country but within our own country from province to province

 

on the one hand we are "fortunate" in Ontario to be ruled with an iron fist, nitpicking on even the smallest and insignificant things, twisting the guidelines to the max meanwhile next door blatant violation of the guidelines are let go

 

it is my hope and desire that there is unity across the board in applying the guidelines

 

Groundspeak has over 200 volunteer reviewers worldwide. Since there is a bit of latitude given to them for making decisions like this, rather than a rigid rulebook, you will unfortunately see 200 ways to interpret situations, and cache reviews around the world. It's unfortunate that things are not consistent enough for you, but at the end of the day we're all here to have a fun, enjoyable hobby - and that includes those who review our caches.

Share this post


Link to post

on the one hand we are "fortunate" in Ontario to be ruled with an iron fist, nitpicking on even the smallest and insignificant things, twisting the guidelines to the max meanwhile next door blatant violation of the guidelines are let go

 

It looks like you are implying that the reviewers were aware of the violation in those listings and knowingly published the listings. Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you just assuming that must be so?

Share this post


Link to post

A comment in passing...

 

I notice that a couple of the events on t4e's list are UK events.

 

From attending and hosting events over here, my perception is that a casual mention of the word "charity" within the listing is acceptable (to UK reviewers) as long as it's not obviously soliciting money/donations but naming a specific charity would not be allowed.

 

Just my impressions.

 

MrsB

Share this post


Link to post

on the one hand we are "fortunate" in Ontario to be ruled with an iron fist, nitpicking on even the smallest and insignificant things, twisting the guidelines to the max meanwhile next door blatant violation of the guidelines are let go

 

It looks like you are implying that the reviewers were aware of the violation in those listings and knowingly published the listings. Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you just assuming that must be so?

As repeatedly observed, that is just one side of the problem.

If the reason for adhering strictly to rules here implies that ALL reviewers are to adhere to them, then every other publish that does not adhere to them, by Groundspeak standards, is an error; if this repeatedly happens, then the reviewers are at fault.

 

If the reason for adhering strictly to rules HERE implies a regional enforcement, then every other publish that does not adhere to them, by Groundspeak standards, is not in error as regional rulings may differ in those areas.

 

In this case, no effort was made to say that simply displaying the word "charity" in a cache listing was ONLY a regional guideline strictly adhered to by reviewers. So yes, it very much does seem that mistakes were made elsewhere on the continent and the world, as the implication is that they are to be reviewing with the same ruleset.

Either the rules are regionally enforced, or they are enforced wordwide. If they are universal, then any cache published that breaks a guideline is at the fault of the reviewer. Yes, reviewers can and will make mistakes, but you can bet when mistakes are made repeatedly, then community will raise concerns about either fairness, consistency, or capability of the reviewers in question.

 

That's a logical conclusion based on the system that's in place.

There is flexibility. This is good. There are mistakes. That's inevitable. Corrections can be made, and people can move on. But words are important though. If it's a Canadian guideline that "charity" shall not be shown in a cache listing (though after this was resolved the issue has been clarified and rectified) then that's fine - events in other countries may promote charities if their regional guidelines allow it. But if we're told this is a Groundspeak universal guideline, then yes - all reviewers worldwide should do their best to adhere to it in their review process.

That is fair.

Share this post


Link to post

I would say that the players themselves are being inconsistent. If one truly believes that the rule / guidelines are being enforced inconsistently and they have knowledge of caches that are published that violate the guidelines, then why complain about it after the fact when something could have been done to level the playing field. In the case where a reviewer has honestly made a mistake, why not contact them privately and let them know?

Edited by Keith Watson

Share this post


Link to post

Seven inconsistencies in 1,601,488 caches. This has reached EPIDEMIC proportions.

 

..

 

I'm sure we can find more.

 

Keith makes a good point though - what is the goal of the complaint? To gain an exemption from the rule guideline because someone else "got away with it". Hardly seems fair to me. Pointing out the others who "got away with it" surely doesn't increase the enjoyment of the game for the players, the other cache owners, or the reviewers. It seems to me that it's a lose, lose, lose situation.

Share this post


Link to post
It seems to me that it's a lose, lose, lose situation.

I'll add another 'lose' to that list: when griefers return to complain about people who raise honest concerns, before they inevitably blow up into a battle of opinions and subversive name-calling in teh Threads o' Drama. (not calling anyone out, just saying)

 

It's the Christmas season. Let's just try to have a happy holiday.

Please.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Seven inconsistencies in 1,601,488 caches. This has reached EPIDEMIC proportions.

 

..

 

I'm sure we can find more.

 

Keith makes a good point though - what is the goal of the complaint? To gain an exemption from the rule guideline because someone else "got away with it". Hardly seems fair to me. Pointing out the others who "got away with it" surely doesn't increase the enjoyment of the game for the players, the other cache owners, or the reviewers. It seems to me that it's a lose, lose, lose situation.

 

It does help satisfy one's insatiable need to find something about Groundspeak to complain about; should one suffer from that affliction. :)

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
It seems to me that it's a lose, lose, lose situation.

I'll add another 'lose' to that list: when griefers return to complain about people who raise honest concerns, before they inevitably blow up into a battle of opinions and subversive name-calling in teh Threads o' Drama. (not calling anyone out, just saying)

 

It's the Christmas season. Let's just try to have a happy holiday.

Please.

 

I'll agree that can be detrimental fast, and that seems to be all that anyone wants to do in the forums these days. I'm all for honest discussions though there are times it seems that the forums are seen as some sort of "appeals above appeals", which is basically mob rule.

 

I'd love to see some topics show up that don't follow the "I am mad at (reviewer name) because they did or did not allow/deny my cache/someone else's cache because of a perceived inconsistency/unfairness in the guideline/rule of my choice". Topics like that Photo Thread, or the Where in Canada Map Quiz.

 

There are battles to be fought for sure, but many of us are losing sight of the fact that we are placing tupperware boxes in the woods and asking people to find them.

Share this post


Link to post

I have the feeling that most of those linked events were simple mistakes. On a couple of them, I had to re-read it several times to find the mention of a charity buried deep in the middle. For all we know, the reviewers in those areas are overworked, and simply don't have the time to dissect every word of every event listing that comes by.

Share this post


Link to post

I have the feeling that most of those linked events were simple mistakes. On a couple of them, I had to re-read it several times to find the mention of a charity buried deep in the middle. For all we know, the reviewers in those areas are overworked, and simply don't have the time to dissect every word of every event listing that comes by.

 

Or quite possibly the changes were made after the listings were published. I made that mistake once not intentional I just wasn't aware of the word I wasn't allowed to use.

Share this post


Link to post

Or quite possibly the changes were made after the listings were published. I made that mistake once not intentional I just wasn't aware of the word I wasn't allowed to use.

 

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post

Seven inconsistencies in 1,601,488 caches. This has reached EPIDEMIC proportions.

 

..

 

Well, more like 7 inconsistencies in a couple hundred Christmas 2011 events. :lol:

 

I believe in post #137 GeeOcachers is providing a quote from NicoleLackey stating that they need to work with the 200+ volunteer reviewers to do better on consistency across the board. Personally, I believe inconsistencies in the volunteer reviewer system are inherent, and rear their ugly heads often.

 

Heck, I first noticed this shortly after I joined in 2003. There was already the de-facto ban on new virtuals, the so-called "Wow factor" period. It was pretty much impossible to get a virtual published in New York then. Then one day I see basically a guy's front yard full of junk (sculptures, I suppose) approved as a virtual in Pennsylvania. And no, I wasn't on a witch hunt, I've been surfing the new listings in New York, Pa. and Ontario a few times a week for about 8 years, so I just noticed it.

 

I could go on and on, believe me, and I mean talking about current listings. Like I say, I'm just a guy who surfs the new listings in the State I live in, and the 2 States/Provinces closest to me, I don't go out of my way to notice this stuff. Inconsistency in the application of the guidelines, is, well, inconsistent. :lol: I hope Groundspeak does work to improve this long standing issue.

Share this post


Link to post

and just when everyone thought this thread has "died" i returned from visiting Vegas and got a chance to read the replies :anibad:

 

on the one hand we are "fortunate" in Ontario to be ruled with an iron fist, nitpicking on even the smallest and insignificant things, twisting the guidelines to the max meanwhile next door blatant violation of the guidelines are let go

 

It looks like you are implying that the reviewers were aware of the violation in those listings and knowingly published the listings. Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you just assuming that must be so?

 

yeap, it sure looks like that is exactly what happened

 

 

i certainly hope so, because it is extremely hard to come to terms with the inconsistencies, not only from country to country but within our own country from province to province

 

on the one hand we are "fortunate" in Ontario to be ruled with an iron fist, nitpicking on even the smallest and insignificant things, twisting the guidelines to the max meanwhile next door blatant violation of the guidelines are let go

 

it is my hope and desire that there is unity across the board in applying the guidelines

 

Groundspeak has over 200 volunteer reviewers worldwide. Since there is a bit of latitude given to them for making decisions like this, rather than a rigid rulebook, you will unfortunately see 200 ways to interpret situations, and cache reviews around the world. It's unfortunate that things are not consistent enough for you, but at the end of the day we're all here to have a fun, enjoyable hobby - and that includes those who review our caches.

 

so we're at the whim of our local reviewers

 

the "latitude" given to them its fine but unfortunately when in one region this "latitude" is taken to extremes makes it unfair and inconsistent

 

yeap, we are supposed to have fun, but situations like this take something out of that enjoyment

one shouldn't have to deal with such petty issues because of differences of opinions

 

I would say that the players themselves are being inconsistent. If one truly believes that the rule / guidelines are being enforced inconsistently and they have knowledge of caches that are published that violate the guidelines, then why complain about it after the fact when something could have been done to level the playing field. In the case where a reviewer has honestly made a mistake, why not contact them privately and let them know?

 

you can't blame the players, some do it because they've been allowed to do so in past years

a few of those events i posted had a 2010 version with the same wording

 

leveling the playing field by reporting it through the back door is not the point

 

Winston Churchill said it very well

 

Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.

 

I have the feeling that most of those linked events were simple mistakes. On a couple of them, I had to re-read it several times to find the mention of a charity buried deep in the middle. For all we know, the reviewers in those areas are overworked, and simply don't have the time to dissect every word of every event listing that comes by.

 

ctrl+F works wonders, however i expect the reviewers to read what they publish

 

and i'm sorry i don't buy the "overworked" claim

if that's the case GC should add more reviewers, i'm sure there's plenty of people out there "qualified" enough for the "job" but seems like its easier to become the CEO of a company than be a reviewer :lol:

 

i still don't see any comments from any of the reviewers, which speaks volumes in a way

Share this post


Link to post

and just when everyone thought this thread has "died" i returned from visiting Vegas and got a chance to read the replies :anibad:

 

on the one hand we are "fortunate" in Ontario to be ruled with an iron fist, nitpicking on even the smallest and insignificant things, twisting the guidelines to the max meanwhile next door blatant violation of the guidelines are let go

 

It looks like you are implying that the reviewers were aware of the violation in those listings and knowingly published the listings. Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you just assuming that must be so?

 

yeap, it sure looks like that is exactly what happened

 

That does not look like any supporting evidence to me.

 

leveling the playing field by reporting it through the back door is not the point

 

Making accusations that are not backed up does not help either. If you have proof of your claims than present it. Otherwise it is pure speculation.

 

ctrl+F works wonders, however i expect the reviewers to read what they publish

 

ctrl+F does not always work. At least one of the present examples did not contain the work charity. Can you provide a list of all the words the reviewers ahould search for in every listing the publish. That would be more helpful than "i expect the reviewers to read what they publish" I assume they do otherwise no cache would ever have problems getting listed. Again, inflammatory statements do not generally help.

 

i still don't see any comments from any of the reviewers, which speaks volumes in a way

 

Try asking a direct question nicely and you may get surprised with an answer. Demanding an answer while making inflammatory remarks and accusations will most likely end up in nothing from the reviewers.

Share this post


Link to post

and just when everyone thought this thread has "died" i returned from visiting Vegas and got a chance to read the replies :anibad:

 

on the one hand we are "fortunate" in Ontario to be ruled with an iron fist, nitpicking on even the smallest and insignificant things, twisting the guidelines to the max meanwhile next door blatant violation of the guidelines are let go

 

It looks like you are implying that the reviewers were aware of the violation in those listings and knowingly published the listings. Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you just assuming that must be so?

 

yeap, it sure looks like that is exactly what happened

 

That does not look like any supporting evidence to me.

 

leveling the playing field by reporting it through the back door is not the point

 

Making accusations that are not backed up does not help either. If you have proof of your claims than present it. Otherwise it is pure speculation.

 

ctrl+F works wonders, however i expect the reviewers to read what they publish

 

ctrl+F does not always work. At least one of the present examples did not contain the work charity. Can you provide a list of all the words the reviewers ahould search for in every listing the publish. That would be more helpful than "i expect the reviewers to read what they publish" I assume they do otherwise no cache would ever have problems getting listed. Again, inflammatory statements do not generally help.

 

i still don't see any comments from any of the reviewers, which speaks volumes in a way

 

Try asking a direct question nicely and you may get surprised with an answer. Demanding an answer while making inflammatory remarks and accusations will most likely end up in nothing from the reviewers.

 

supporting evidence of what? :blink:

 

i don't feel i need any more proof beyond the links to the listings...that is the proof i had to provide afaic,i can't read people's minds so the burden of proof lies on the other parties now

 

please stop misinterpreting my words, its seriously annoying now

 

where the heck do you see "inflammatory remarks"?

 

i did not demand anything, the question was asked in the very post with the links, please do go back and read it, i asked for someone with "authority" to make a comment

i guess its time i post the promised links since those events took place already

 

please, someone in position of authority enlighten me how those events didn't have to change their description?

...i don't think i can be anymore polite than that, unfortunately i sense a position of ignoring my posts, which of course they are free to do so, just not very professional

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

i still don't see any comments from any of the reviewers, which speaks volumes in a way

 

I've seen way more reviewer comments in this thread than you normally see.

 

Well put. And now we are all on the same page.

 

My point was more to point out that such comments are not in line with the terms of

use for the forums, whether directed at me or other people in the forums. But this recent post seemed to

warrant a reminder that the stove is still hot.

 

Be as funny as you like as long as it remains within the guidelines of forum use set out by Groundspeak.

 

I have just posted a Reviewer Note on the cache page. http://coord.info/GL72E2VE

 

This cache event has been referred to appeals. We review caches on a case-by-case basis and understand this is a grey area. Groundspeak's guidelines (visit link) state caches should not solicit for any purpose. This includes the sentence "Any extra kids gifts will be donated after the event to a local charity."

 

We consider this a slippery slope. If we allow mentions of donating to charity in general, we could allow it for other causes then other not so good causes, so we prefer not to go down this slope at all. Thus, Cache Drone asked to have this sentence removed.

Of course, this has no relevance to whether gifts are actually donated to charity. That is fine, we only ask to keep it off the cache page.

 

Cache Drone has agreed to unarchive the event so people can still attend and have a great time.

We (Groundspeak and Cache Drone) are asking the cache owner to compromise and edit the listing to remove this sentence.

 

If you have any questions regarding cache guidelines or volunteer reviewers, please email appeals@Groundspeak.com directly.

 

Thank you for continuing this discussion within this forum rather than the cache page.

 

Not recommended. Doing so would fall under the maintenance of a cache listing, which logs are a part of that aspect. Using the "announcement" log type by any host would be likely viewed as attempting to circumvent the guidelines they agreed to follow.

 

Have a search in the Canada Forums for "Plasma Boy" if you are so inclined as an example of how a cache log with an agenda is also not permitted under the Terms of Use.

 

:cool: CD

 

Here's what makes me laugh.

 

Back in the summer CacheViewer declined a cache listing because it promoted the virtues of the drive-thru window of a restaurant. Instead of simply accepting that and updating their listing, this whiner kicked and screamed like a child that they were being treated so unfairly then promptly went on their own personal vendetta. They collected over 50 listings and DEMANDED that the reviewers take IMMEDIATE action against those listings just to satisfy the ego and entitlement issues that so cripple their delicate self-confidence. As the logs went out they likely puffed up with pride knowing the swath of disablings were sending shock waves across the province. So while this whining child-like cacher sat veiled in secrecy, the reviewers took all the heat from the locals that were so frustrated. All of this just because some listing wasn't allowed to promote a local restaurant. So here's what I see.

 

SOME cachers in Ontario simply cannot accept that things don't always go their way, but instead of being adult about it they would rather see everyone else suffer too. "I didn't get my way so I'm going to take it out on everyone else. And I'm going to do it behind everyone's back safe in my secret bunker where no one will ever know it was me."

 

So from time to time things like this happen in Ontario, because when some cacher with entitlement issues gets turned down they sabotage a bunch of other cache listings... claiming it is to be fair, but never with the courage to be public about it.

 

How does that make you feel "thebruce0"? Imagine that guy was reading or even posting in this same thread... Any special words for the person that flipped out and emailed me that list of 50+ caches demanding they be changed? I blame THAT guy for all of this nonsense that has happened this year. I blame the mentality that SOME people have, that they need to take others down all because they didn't get their way. Boo hoo!

 

 

Where did I infer it was you? I said...

 

How does that make you feel "thebruce0"? Imagine that guy was reading or even posting in this same thread... Any special words for the person that flipped out and emailed me that list of 50+ caches demanding they be changed? I blame THAT guy for all of this nonsense that has happened this year. I blame the mentality that SOME people have, that they need to take others down all because they didn't get their way.

 

and that was because you keep suggesting the lack of consistency by the reviewers is causing all these problems.

 

Odd, I didn't start this topic, yet strangely I feel as though I am being told to simmer down for standing up to what I feel is an inconsistency in the application of the guidelines by reviewers. I think that topic is quite important, since consistency can go a long way to ensuring this game is fair and therefore fun for all. If the topic was originally started by me and was strictly about the inconsistency, I think it might have had a different and perhaps more valuable outcome.

 

However, due to my appeal to Groundspeak, I feel that they have understood my issue and have at least acknowledged that it is a problem and have stated they are working on solutions with all the reviewers. In my mind that is a win.

 

I made a point a long while ago to stay away from these forums because I know they eventually degrade into name calling and petty arguments. Nobody wins, everybody loses.

 

Agreed. All of it. To all of us.

Share this post


Link to post

i did not demand anything, the question was asked in the very post with the links, please do go back and read it, i asked for someone with "authority" to make a comment

i guess its time i post the promised links since those events took place already

 

please, someone in position of authority enlighten me how those events didn't have to change their description?

...i don't think i can be anymore polite than that, unfortunately i sense a position of ignoring my posts, which of course they are free to do so, just not very professional

 

Ohhhhh, in that case if you expect an answer you probably want to start by emailing the relevant reviewers a link to the thread rather than assuming they are reading it.

Share this post


Link to post

Last time I check the burdo of proof was on the accuser.

 

If you are serriously expecting the reviewers to post something here saying they are being unfair, lazey, carless, or anything else tha can be twisted and or thrown back at them, I think you are in for a long wait.

Share this post


Link to post

 

..... I still don't see any comments from any of the reviewers, which speaks volumes in a way

 

 

On the topic of speaking volumes, it is interesting to note that the OP didn't even attend the event she is whining about.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

Last time I check the burdo of proof was on the accuser.

 

If you are serriously expecting the reviewers to post something here saying they are being unfair, lazey, carless, or anything else tha can be twisted and or thrown back at them, I think you are in for a long wait.

 

putting words into my mouth again?

 

again, there is nothing for me to prove further

 

the point of those links was to show that there is indeed some latitude that the reviewers can use without going to extremes

 

perhaps if people would get out of the "i'm assuming your intentions are malicious" shell they would be able to better see the point of this thread

 

 

..... I still don't see any comments from any of the reviewers, which speaks volumes in a way

 

 

On the topic of speaking volumes, it is interesting to note that the OP didn't even attend the event she is whining about.

 

 

what does that have to do with anything?

 

you mean to tell me that you never raise any issues unless they affect you personally?

Share this post


Link to post

Last time I check the burdo of proof was on the accuser.

 

If you are serriously expecting the reviewers to post something here saying they are being unfair, lazey, carless, or anything else tha can be twisted and or thrown back at them, I think you are in for a long wait.

 

putting words into my mouth again?

 

again, there is nothing for me to prove further

 

the point of those links was to show that there is indeed some latitude that the reviewers can use without going to extremes

 

Not putting words into your mouth. I made a statement. Take note of the word IF.

 

The only thing that those links show is that the listings were published and currently contain content to do with charities. There is no proof that I see that the offending content existed in the listing when the event was publish. It does not prove that there is any latitude used by reviewers. It is possible that if it was pointed out to the reviewers when the listings were active, they may very well have had the listings corrected. By waiting until they were over we may never know.

 

You have yet to prove anything other than presenting anecdotal evidence.

Share this post


Link to post

Last time I check the burdo of proof was on the accuser.

 

If you are serriously expecting the reviewers to post something here saying they are being unfair, lazey, carless, or anything else tha can be twisted and or thrown back at them, I think you are in for a long wait.

 

putting words into my mouth again?

 

again, there is nothing for me to prove further

 

the point of those links was to show that there is indeed some latitude that the reviewers can use without going to extremes

 

Not putting words into your mouth. I made a statement. Take note of the word IF.

 

The only thing that those links show is that the listings were published and currently contain content to do with charities. There is no proof that I see that the offending content existed in the listing when the event was publish. It does not prove that there is any latitude used by reviewers. It is possible that if it was pointed out to the reviewers when the listings were active, they may very well have had the listings corrected. By waiting until they were over we may never know.

 

You have yet to prove anything other than presenting anecdotal evidence.

 

there is nothing "anecdotal" about the listings i posted...they are pretty much black on white, unless some color was used

 

i had knowledge of those listings way before they took place... and it was never my intention to rat out anyone and cause grief to the CO's

i don't really care if the wording was there or not, as it showed in our example here the original event was published with the offending word in it

it was not an issue until a "copycat" listing popped up and perhaps because the CO was not a known figure in the community the listing was scrutinized further

and please don't go reading into that statement more than it really is, we all tend to be less vigilant with someone that we expect to be up to certain standards

as an example, i personally will not scrutinize the reports i get from someone that has been submitting them to me for the past 5 years as opposed to someone that just started one month ago

i have more faith and trust in the more senior person that they know what they are doing, and based on past experience when i always had good output from them

the same does not apply to the new person in the job

so no, its not an 'inflammatory" remark, its just a normal state of affairs

 

perhaps is due to my occupation for so many years that i need a logical explanation of why something was done the way it was done, not just simply because "i say so"

i know this is not a job, but we are who we are and in my "world" silence is not an answer, investors will not keep funding the company if i just turn a blind eye and ignore any issues they raise, hoping they will forget about it

 

yes, i know it is quite a parallel but at the end of the day we are paying customers to Groundspeak even if the reviewers are volunteers and do it for the love of the game, they are the representatives of GC and the first "authority" we have access to, would be nice if they had the courtesy to make a comment

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...