Jump to content

[FEATURE] "Report" button on cache pages


BBWolf+3Pigs

Recommended Posts

Request is to add a "Report" button on the cache listing, which would allow a cacher to bring a cache to a Reviewer's attention for any type of issue (such as violates the guidelines). The report would only go to the reviewers (report would include the cacher's username) and would not show publicly on the cache logs (as a Needs Archive log does).

 

This kind of feature would hopefully minimize the angst that some people face when posting a Needs Archive type log.

Link to post

Request is to add a "Report" button on the cache listing, which would allow a cacher to bring a cache to a Reviewer's attention for any type of issue (such as violates the guidelines). The report would only go to the reviewers (report would include the cacher's username) and would not show publicly on the cache logs (as a Needs Archive log does).

 

This kind of feature would hopefully minimize the angst that some people face when posting a Needs Archive type log.

 

I think you are onto something.

 

Fear of retaliation is an issue that affects safety and willingness to report perceived infractions. In the workplace this is covered under the whistle blower's clause, but proactive employers make anonymity part of their policy.

 

Sure there will be people who abuse the feature, but it would do more good than harm. IMO.

Link to post

I think you are onto something.

 

Fear of retaliation is an issue that affects safety and willingness to report perceived infractions. In the workplace this is covered under the whistle blower's clause, but proactive employers make anonymity part of their policy.

 

Sure there will be people who abuse the feature, but it would do more good than harm. IMO.

 

A good idea! Basically the same as an email or PM, but perhaps to an account that gets some priority as well.

 

As for the abuse issue... it seems to me that the abuser would be clearly seen to be that by the reviewer receiving the report.

Something of a self limiting bit of feedback information to be used by the staff as part of the process.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to post

I think you are onto something.

 

Full Disclosure: It's not my idea! It was mentioned in another thread, and I decided to run with it since it makes a lot of sense.

 

And thanks for posting the idea. :) I hope it happens.

Link to post

I think you are onto something.

 

Fear of retaliation is an issue that affects safety and willingness to report perceived infractions. In the workplace this is covered under the whistle blower's clause, but proactive employers make anonymity part of their policy.

 

Sure there will be people who abuse the feature, but it would do more good than harm. IMO.

 

A good idea! Basically the same as an email or PM, but perhaps to an account that gets some priority as well.

 

As for the abuse issue... it seems to me that the abuser would be clearly seen to be that by the reviewer receiving the report.

Something of a self limiting bit of feedback information to be used by the staff as part of the process.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

I should probably explain my post a bit.

 

to report perceived infractions.

 

Perception is reality.

 

There will be an element that uses the button to hammer an agenda for good or ill. I think they will be an extreme minority.

 

There will probably be more reports based on the finder's perception and in many cases, probably most, that perception will be something that should be considered an inherent risk to cache hunting given the specific terrain and difficulty.

 

There will be reports of permission violations. The reporter should probably know for a fact or close to it before making that type of report or it could become a nuisance.

 

There will be reports of guideline violations. The reporter should state the guideline in their report and give a clear description of the perceived violation or it could become a nuisance.

 

There will be folks that report a cache because it failed to blow their skirt up. Hopefully they will be another extreme minority.

 

However, I believe that this idea could work with proper guidance to users and volunteers and time to work the kinks out.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to post

There will probably be more reports based on the finder's perception and in many cases, probably most, that perception will be something that should be considered an inherent risk to cache hunting given the specific terrain and difficulty.

 

Risk to person is not a violation of the guidelines. Risk to the environment is altogether another matter.

Link to post

There will probably be more reports based on the finder's perception and in many cases, probably most, that perception will be something that should be considered an inherent risk to cache hunting given the specific terrain and difficulty.

 

Risk to person is not a violation of the guidelines. Risk to the environment is altogether another matter.

 

Yes, but this request comes from the discussion of a 21yo cacher, in Germany, that died. The perception is that a warning system could save future accidents/fatalities.

Link to post

There will probably be more reports based on the finder's perception and in many cases, probably most, that perception will be something that should be considered an inherent risk to cache hunting given the specific terrain and difficulty.

 

Risk to person is not a violation of the guidelines. Risk to the environment is altogether another matter.

 

Yes, but this request comes from the discussion of a 21yo cacher, in Germany, that died. The perception is that a warning system could save future accidents/fatalities.

 

I am aware of the tragedy and am saddened but don't share your view that a warning would have made a difference. Most people don't pay attention to page listings AND "some" (myself included) will take an unnecessary risk to obtain a smilie while geocaching. It defies logic but it is reality. Other posters have suggested that the cache in question was located in an "off limits" area. If that was the case then it should have been marked as "needs archive" by those that have noticed same.

Link to post

There will probably be more reports based on the finder's perception and in many cases, probably most, that perception will be something that should be considered an inherent risk to cache hunting given the specific terrain and difficulty.

 

Risk to person is not a violation of the guidelines. Risk to the environment is altogether another matter.

 

Yes, but this request comes from the discussion of a 21yo cacher, in Germany, that died. The perception is that a warning system could save future accidents/fatalities.

 

I am aware of the tragedy and am saddened but don't share your view that a warning would have made a difference. Most people don't pay attention to page listings AND "some" (myself included) will take an unnecessary risk to obtain a smilie while geocaching. It defies logic but it is reality. Other posters have suggested that the cache in question was located in an "off limits" area. If that was the case then it should have been marked as "needs archive" by those that have noticed same.

 

How are SBA's regarded by the majority in your cachin' continuum?

 

Many folks just don't want to go there or deal with the fallout that can occurr.

 

It's a problem of the geocaching culture that needs to change. Folks are going to resist it kicking and screaming. Clearly the SBA system isn't working efficiently if none of the 34 finders on that deadly cache were willing to post one. It's also a problem in that local community to turn a blind eye to an illegal cache.

Link to post

There will probably be more reports based on the finder's perception and in many cases, probably most, that perception will be something that should be considered an inherent risk to cache hunting given the specific terrain and difficulty.

 

Risk to person is not a violation of the guidelines. Risk to the environment is altogether another matter.

 

Yes, but this request comes from the discussion of a 21yo cacher, in Germany, that died. The perception is that a warning system could save future accidents/fatalities.

 

I'll explain my intent. I did not intend this to be for "risk reporting" but for guideline infraction reporting. A cache is behing a no trespassing sign, or the cache is on property where there is a "no caching" policy in effect, etc.

 

Risk is too hard to define.

Link to post

This is actually an idea that makes sense and which I support.

 

I can imagine a lot of users do not want to be recognized as tattletale (used a translator for this word, hope it is correct) and therefore do not report inappropriate caches because their report will be public.

 

Having the possibility to do an anonymous report will help a lot to get rid of caches that should not be listed on here.

Link to post

How are SBA's regarded by the majority in your cachin' continuum?

 

Many folks just don't want to go there or deal with the fallout that can occurr.

 

It's a problem of the geocaching culture that needs to change. Folks are going to resist it kicking and screaming. Clearly the SBA system isn't working efficiently if none of the 34 finders on that deadly cache were UNwilling to post one. It's also a problem in that local community to turn a blind eye to an illegal cache.

Certainly many are reluctant to post SBA for whatever reason. Personally I want to know right away that a fellow cacher considers a cache SBA and not wait for the reviewers to ponder an anonymous tip. With the former I can make an informed decision, with the latter I am walking into.....?

Link to post

There will probably be more reports based on the finder's perception and in many cases, probably most, that perception will be something that should be considered an inherent risk to cache hunting given the specific terrain and difficulty.

 

Risk to person is not a violation of the guidelines. Risk to the environment is altogether another matter.

 

Yes, but this request comes from the discussion of a 21yo cacher, in Germany, that died. The perception is that a warning system could save future accidents/fatalities.

 

I'll explain my intent. I did not intend this to be for "risk reporting" but for guideline infraction reporting. A cache is behing a no trespassing sign, or the cache is on property where there is a "no caching" policy in effect, etc.

 

Risk is too hard to define.

 

Risk is not hard to define if you provide some guidance. Maybe a matrix. I.E. Cache contains a fall from height hazard within x feet of cache. If this information does not exist on the page then maybe it could be added to a warning section separate from spoiler logs. Just something more than we are doing now.

 

A fall from height hazard near a cache would certainly get talked about at a local event in my experience, but you wouldn't catch many folks reporting it as the system exists today. No one wants to be labled The Cache Police.

 

Regardless of intent, if the report button gets put into action folks will still report a cache based on their perception of risk or the fact that they DNF'd a cache due to lack of ability thus failing to blow their skirt up. It's gonna happen.

Link to post

I like this idea. There are many cases where a cache should be archived, or at least brought to the attention of a reviewer, but cachers are unwilling to post a NA and be seen as a whistleblower. If you force the "reporter" to choose from several categories (ie. Permission issue, Guideline violation, Cache missing and owner inactive, etc.), and require a detailed explanation of why they are reporting it, you probably won't see too many bogus reports. Even when there are bogus reports, it should be pretty easy to tell.

 

+1

Link to post

I like this idea. There are many cases where a cache should be archived, or at least brought to the attention of a reviewer, but cachers are unwilling to post a NA and be seen as a whistleblower. If you force the "reporter" to choose from several categories (ie. Permission issue, Guideline violation, Cache missing and owner inactive, etc.), and require a detailed explanation of why they are reporting it, you probably won't see too many bogus reports. Even when there are bogus reports, it should be pretty easy to tell.

 

I like this idea, but I have two questions.

 

1. Would it be made clear this is an anonymous NA log for serious problems? I have gotten normal NM logs on my caches because "They need more trade items"

 

2. How will the reviewer deal with is? I assume the same copy-paste log used now? Will the CO get an email that someone reported the cache? Or will their first warning be a log from the local reviewer?

Link to post

I like this idea. There are many cases where a cache should be archived, or at least brought to the attention of a reviewer, but cachers are unwilling to post a NA and be seen as a whistleblower. If you force the "reporter" to choose from several categories (ie. Permission issue, Guideline violation, Cache missing and owner inactive, etc.), and require a detailed explanation of why they are reporting it, you probably won't see too many bogus reports. Even when there are bogus reports, it should be pretty easy to tell.

 

+1

 

I like the idea for a requriement for category - keep the choices small (Permission Issue, Guideline Violation, etc) with a text box.

Link to post

I like this idea. There are many cases where a cache should be archived, or at least brought to the attention of a reviewer, but cachers are unwilling to post a NA and be seen as a whistleblower. If you force the "reporter" to choose from several categories (ie. Permission issue, Guideline violation, Cache missing and owner inactive, etc.), and require a detailed explanation of why they are reporting it, you probably won't see too many bogus reports. Even when there are bogus reports, it should be pretty easy to tell.

 

+1

 

This is pretty much the way I directed the Hazard Reporting App to be written where I work, but after just a few days I needed to add an "other" catagory with a text field to explain the "other" situation.

 

It herds the cats well though.

Link to post

I like this idea, but I have two questions.

 

1. Would it be made clear this is an anonymous NA log for serious problems? I have gotten normal NM logs on my caches because "They need more trade items"

You're right, it would have to be made very clear that it is only for serious problems, and that minor issues like a wet log should be logged with a NM.

 

2. How will the reviewer deal with is? I assume the same copy-paste log used now?

It really depends on what type of issue is reported. They may archive it, disable it, or simply contact the owner.

 

Will the CO get an email that someone reported the cache? Or will their first warning be a log from the local reviewer?

That's an interesting question. The intention of this was to notify the reviewer, but can anyone think of any pros or cons to the CO also receiving such a notification? Obviously, the notification to the CO wouldn't contain the reporting user's name.

 

This is pretty much the way I directed the Hazard Reporting App to be written where I work, but after just a few days I needed to add an "other" catagory with a text field to explain the "other" situation.

I'm inclined to do it the other way around. Start out with the "other" category, and look at what people are using it for. After a while, it will become apparent if there is a need for some new categories. I think there's really a finite number of reasons to report a cache, so there should be categories suitable to catch all of them. Leaving an "other" category invites the earlier mentioned "bogus" reports.

Link to post

I'm inclined to support this idea but I suspect that this feature would be used as a weapon to be thrown against others.

 

But trying to add something that may help;

I like the idea that a reporter must explain in detail the reason of the report. I Like the option that the CO will receive a copy of the report - without the Reporter's identification - but I would add a limit to the number of total reports one can issue per month. This would force Reporters to prioritize their reports - and save Reviewers from dealing with many reports. :)

Link to post

I like this idea. There are many cases where a cache should be archived, or at least brought to the attention of a reviewer, but cachers are unwilling to post a NA and be seen as a whistleblower. If you force the "reporter" to choose from several categories (ie. Permission issue, Guideline violation, Cache missing and owner inactive, etc.), and require a detailed explanation of why they are reporting it, you probably won't see too many bogus reports. Even when there are bogus reports, it should be pretty easy to tell.

 

+1

 

I like the idea for a requriement for category - keep the choices small (Permission Issue, Guideline Violation, etc) with a text box.

 

I agree that the category choices and required text field would help to minimize any misuse of the Report function.

 

One other thing, ideally the Report button should appear above the fold i.e. a cacher doesn't have to scroll down to see it or open up the full roster of logs to see it at the very bottom.

Link to post

I like this idea. There are many cases where a cache should be archived, or at least brought to the attention of a reviewer, but cachers are unwilling to post a NA and be seen as a whistleblower. If you force the "reporter" to choose from several categories (ie. Permission issue, Guideline violation, Cache missing and owner inactive, etc.), and require a detailed explanation of why they are reporting it, you probably won't see too many bogus reports. Even when there are bogus reports, it should be pretty easy to tell.

 

+1

 

I like the idea for a requriement for category - keep the choices small (Permission Issue, Guideline Violation, etc) with a text box.

 

I agree that the category choices and required text field would help to minimize any misuse of the Report function.

 

One other thing, ideally the Report button should appear above the fold i.e. a cacher doesn't have to scroll down to see it or open up the full roster of logs to see it at the very bottom.

 

Agreed.

Link to post

Request is to add a "Report" button on the cache listing, which would allow a cacher to bring a cache to a Reviewer's attention for any type of issue (such as violates the guidelines). The report would only go to the reviewers (report would include the cacher's username) and would not show publicly on the cache logs (as a Needs Archive log does).

 

This kind of feature would hopefully minimize the angst that some people face when posting a Needs Archive type log.

 

I agree... Sometimes I see a cache that is in clear violation of Federal, state, &/or local laws, or even geocaching.com guidelines. And I really don't want to issue a N/A log as EVERYONE can see my log and what I am referencing.

 

I much prefer the "Report" feature. This would allow me to remain anonymous and get the Reviewers attention. I do admit I have UNintentionally made a mistake before when it came to issuing a NA log on a cache that I THOUGHT was in violation. When in fact it wasn't. I got chastized really badly by the CO as well as a few other cachers because of this. I apologized of course. However, if the report feature was enabled. Then I would have only been chastized by the reviewer, and not the CO & other cachers.

 

Issuing an NA log, can make the cache appear to be a "Bad" cache and can scare other cachers away from attempting to find that cache. When maybe it shouldn't.

 

So I fully support the idea of EITHER anonomous NA logs, or a report button.

 

Thanks

 

TGC

Link to post

I like this idea. There are many cases where a cache should be archived, or at least brought to the attention of a reviewer, but cachers are unwilling to post a NA and be seen as a whistleblower. If you force the "reporter" to choose from several categories (ie. Permission issue, Guideline violation, Cache missing and owner inactive, etc.), and require a detailed explanation of why they are reporting it, you probably won't see too many bogus reports. Even when there are bogus reports, it should be pretty easy to tell.

 

I also like the idea if someone really looks into the reports and no automatic action is taken if a certain number of reports have arrived. For me the issue is not only the whistleblower aspect you mention. For good reasons there exists the possibility for reviewers to work with a second identity. I am not in favor of N/A logs coming from sock puppets. There are several caches where I wondered about posting a N/A, but finally decided not to post such a log because I was not eager to be confronted with a wave of insults, aggression, anger etc. I know of several fellow local cachers who acted similarly. They would make fair use of such an option and not overuse it.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to post

How about just scolling down to the reviewer who published it and email them directly.

 

Currently this is what I do. But a "Report" feature would be more "official" and could be tracked internally by Groundspeak.

 

There is a "Report" function here in the forums, as well as a similar feature for Challenges. Why not the same feature for caches?

Link to post

I also like the idea if someone really looks into the reports and no automatic action is taken if a certain number of reports have arrived. Cezanne

 

I agree - there should be no automatic result of a Report'ed cache. An assessment by a reviewer should be required.

 

Usually when I send an email to my local reviweer regarding a cache, they will first contact the cache owner for their response. They will sometimes disable the cache while the CO responds.

Link to post

How about just scolling down to the reviewer who published it and email them directly.

 

Currently this is what I do. But a "Report" feature would be more "official" and could be tracked internally by Groundspeak.

 

It is not only more official. It also would make it impossible to receive the reply of a reviewer to an e-mail contact saying that one needs to post a N/A log - this happened to me and several others at various occasions. I think that some reviewers who do not review under a second identity prefer if there is a scapegoat around who can be blamed if they need to archive a cache.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to post

There will probably be more reports based on the finder's perception and in many cases, probably most, that perception will be something that should be considered an inherent risk to cache hunting given the specific terrain and difficulty.

 

Risk to person is not a violation of the guidelines. Risk to the environment is altogether another matter.

 

Yes, but this request comes from the discussion of a 21yo cacher, in Germany, that died. The perception is that a warning system could save future accidents/fatalities.

 

35 people got that cache with no incidents

 

while the idea of the report button may seem good at first glance it will be abused and very subjective based on each person's view of what is dangerous and what is not

 

i have seen silly comments on caches where they were off the trail but down on a bit of a steep hill saying that its dangerous

Link to post

There will probably be more reports based on the finder's perception and in many cases, probably most, that perception will be something that should be considered an inherent risk to cache hunting given the specific terrain and difficulty.

 

Risk to person is not a violation of the guidelines. Risk to the environment is altogether another matter.

 

Yes, but this request comes from the discussion of a 21yo cacher, in Germany, that died. The perception is that a warning system could save future accidents/fatalities.

 

I'll explain my intent. I did not intend this to be for "risk reporting" but for guideline infraction reporting. A cache is behing a no trespassing sign, or the cache is on property where there is a "no caching" policy in effect, etc.

 

Risk is too hard to define.

 

I like the idea of a "report this cache" button when it comes to the Guidelines, or local laws being broken.

 

To use it to "warn" other people is a ridiculous notion. I wish people would stop putting words into other people's mouths. It's unsanitary and annoying.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to post

How are SBA's regarded by the majority in your cachin' continuum?

 

Many folks just don't want to go there or deal with the fallout that can occurr.

 

It's a problem of the geocaching culture that needs to change. Folks are going to resist it kicking and screaming. Clearly the SBA system isn't working efficiently if none of the 34 finders on that deadly cache were UNwilling to post one. It's also a problem in that local community to turn a blind eye to an illegal cache.

Certainly many are reluctant to post SBA for whatever reason. Personally I want to know right away that a fellow cacher considers a cache SBA and not wait for the reviewers to ponder an anonymous tip. With the former I can make an informed decision, with the latter I am walking into.....?

 

You make a valid point, but in the absence of anonymity, you still have the larger job to change the culture which is going to take years.

 

The most recent frequency in geocaching deaths 5 months. Heinrich's Law applies. I would almost expect at least one more death in the next 12 months.

 

I hope I'm wrong. But if I'm not, what could have been done to try to prevent that next geocaching death especially if it is due to a cache that shouldn't have been posted in the first place as in the case of Willimax's death?

 

Facts

 

#1 The CO placed a cache in an off limits area. Whether he knew or not.

#2 It passed review and was published.

#3 34 finders either didn't know to report it, didn't care to report it, or were afraid to report it. Mix and match.

#4 Willimax chose to go there alone, at night, and died hunting it. He was 21yo.

 

Off the top of my head, I see close to 40 proactive ways his death could have been prevented just from those 4 facts. Now ask yourself this..... Is it really okay to be hearing over and over, eh it was his choice....? Certainly, the final steps were his.... But there at least 36 ways that he could have never had the chance to make that choice. 34 of those ways could have used the feature we are discussing.

 

I am not assigning blame. I will leave that up to the local authorities. What I am saying is that in an established geocaching culture of safety Willi MIGHT NOT have died. He was 21 years old. That keeps going over and over in my mind. He was 21yo. :sad:

 

Edit (in bold) to keep my long speech on topic.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to post

while the idea of the report button may seem good at first glance it will be abused and very subjective based on each person's view of what is dangerous and what is not

 

i have seen silly comments on caches where they were off the trail but down on a bit of a steep hill saying that its dangerous

 

They might still be too dangerous for a specific person at a specific day - I experienced several such situations personally and I do want to have the right to call dangerous for me whatever I want. I do not think that anyone would use the report button for such a case. Have you received a N/A log in the cases you mention? I do not think so.

The idea of the report button is remove some problems with the N/A system and not to come up with warnings for fellow cachers who are not supposed to see the report anyway.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to post

How about just scolling down to the reviewer who published it and email them directly.

 

I had no idea that I could contact a reviewer and how to go about it until I read about it in the forums. How many geocachers read the forums? Maybe 5%. I don't think it is intuitive that if you want to report anonymously that you go to the cache page, open up the full roster of logs, scroll down to the bottom, find the reviewers note and click the reviewers link. There's nothing in the reviewers note that says, if you have any issues regarding guideline infractions and would like to alert the reviewer, click on the reviewers name and send a message.

Edited by Noel R
Link to post

How about just scolling down to the reviewer who published it and email them directly.

 

I had no idea that I could contact a reviewer and how to go about it until I read about it in the forums. How many geocachers read the forums? Maybe 5%. I don't think it is intuitive that if you want to report anonymously that you go to the cache page, open up the full roster of logs, scroll down to the bottom, find the reviewers note and click the reviewers link. There's nothing in the reviewers note that says, if you have any issues regarding guideline infractions and would like to alert the reviewer, click on the reviewers name and send a message.

 

Moreover, as I have mentioned there are reviewers who do not wish to act on the basis of personal mails and ask for a NA log (probably because in that way someone else can be blamed to be the bad guy and not the reviewer). Another issue arises in the case where reviewers resigned and are no longer active or are not any longer dealing with a certain region/country.

The suggestes report button would avoid these problems while at the same time allow to stay outside of personal debates.

Link to post

I like the suggestion of making safety-issue reporting easier and more obvious.

 

So, how about a quick link off the navigation bar, like this:

 

    • 63f5184e-20de-4170-896a-6181ba5c19d7.jpg?rnd=0.2842013

If you click on "Report a safety issue" then you get a comments box to fill in plus some instructions telling you what effect the report will have; perhaps along these lines:

 

    • By filling in the comment box below, you are alerting the cache owner (anonymously) and Groundspeak or the volunteer reviewers (as insert-your-caching-name-here) of a safety issue that:
      • is unexpected and potentially hazardous to people finding the cache;
      • is not obvious to cache-seekers when they reach the site;
      • is not adequately explained in the cache listing.

Please describe the issue in the comments box.

Perhaps the text by the comment box could go on to say: "Your comments will appear, anonymously, on the cache as a Needs-Reviewer-Attention log", where NRA is just a renaming of Needs Archived. Or, if that's too complicated, just have the system silently notify the CO + GS + Reviewer behind the scenes.

Link to post

Neat idea - however...

 

Some thoughts here -

A person reports a cache anonymously - but how easy would it be to figure out who it was reported by? Unless they never actually found the cache ( no smilie). I'd personally want to know who/why they reported it so I could question them - what happened?

 

How's this any different than the current Needs Maintenance / Archived? Other than the Anonymous part ...

 

As a cache owner myself - it's only fair to notify the CO initially so they have a chance to fix the issue. Why does it need to be reported to Groundspeak immediately? Give the owner the 30 days (similar to the current procedure) to fix it.

If they don't fix the issue - then archive it.

Same as the reviewers do now.

 

Think about all the responsible cache owners who would love to take care of any issues that pop up BEFORE being reported. Is it fair they get dinged immediately?

Link to post

I like the suggestion of making safety-issue reporting easier and more obvious.

 

So, how about a quick link off the navigation bar, like this:

 

    • 63f5184e-20de-4170-896a-6181ba5c19d7.jpg?rnd=0.2842013

If you click on "Report a safety issue" then you get a comments box to fill in plus some instructions telling you what effect the report will have; perhaps along these lines:

 

    • By filling in the comment box below, you are alerting the cache owner (anonymously) and Groundspeak or the volunteer reviewers (as insert-your-caching-name-here) of a safety issue that:
      • is unexpected and potentially hazardous to people finding the cache;
      • is not obvious to cache-seekers when they reach the site;
      • is not adequately explained in the cache listing.

Please describe the issue in the comments box.

Perhaps the text by the comment box could go on to say: "Your comments will appear, anonymously, on the cache as a Needs-Reviewer-Attention log", where NRA is just a renaming of Needs Archived. Or, if that's too complicated, just have the system silently notify the CO + GS + Reviewer behind the scenes.

 

The intent of suggestion is not for reporting safety issues (see above). It is fro teh anonymous reporting of cache guidelines issues (private property, school grounds, etc). Please do not sidetrack my suggestion with safety concerns.

Link to post
The intent of suggestion is not for reporting safety issues (see above). It is fro teh anonymous reporting of cache guidelines issues (private property, school grounds, etc).

OK, I didn't read further than the OP. In that case, no, I don't support it. If you know the guidelines well enough that you can recognise a violation, you'll know you can contact the reviewer or GS.

 

The attraction for me of a report-a-safety-issue button (which in 500+ finds I would have used twice) was that it could be used by anyone regardless of geocaching experience.

Link to post
The intent of suggestion is not for reporting safety issues (see above). It is fro teh anonymous reporting of cache guidelines issues (private property, school grounds, etc).

OK, I didn't read further than the OP. In that case, no, I don't support it. If you know the guidelines well enough that you can recognise a violation, you'll know you can contact the reviewer or GS.

 

The attraction for me of a report-a-safety-issue button (which in 500+ finds I would have used twice) was that it could be used by anyone regardless of geocaching experience.

 

(Pssst. It still can. He's just not wanting you to limit it to one specific purpose.)

Link to post

Neat idea - however...

 

Some thoughts here -

A person reports a cache anonymously - but how easy would it be to figure out who it was reported by? Unless they never actually found the cache ( no smilie). I'd personally want to know who/why they reported it so I could question them - what happened?

 

How's this any different than the current Needs Maintenance / Archived? Other than the Anonymous part ...

 

As a cache owner myself - it's only fair to notify the CO initially so they have a chance to fix the issue. Why does it need to be reported to Groundspeak immediately? Give the owner the 30 days (similar to the current procedure) to fix it.

If they don't fix the issue - then archive it.

Same as the reviewers do now.

 

Think about all the responsible cache owners who would love to take care of any issues that pop up BEFORE being reported. Is it fair they get dinged immediately?

 

People have been harrassed by cache owners when posting an NA on a cache as noted in various threads here which has resulted in people not reporting caches which are in breech of the guidelines.

 

If you knowingly put a cache on the site in breech of the guidelines you likely wouldn't be too thrilled if it was pointed out by someone.

Link to post

 

People have been harrassed by cache owners when posting an NA on a cache as noted in various threads here which has resulted in people not reporting caches which are in breech of the guidelines.

 

If you knowingly put a cache on the site in breech of the guidelines you likely wouldn't be too thrilled if it was pointed out by someone.

 

How often does this harrassment occur? So you're willing to ding all the responsible hiders for the sake of the fewer bad apples?

 

And you say....'knowingly'

How often do new people hide caches who are unaware of the guidelines? Do they need to be reported and 'dinged' for a newbie mistake? You'll be turning people away from this hobby....

 

The thought of allowing the entire geocaching community make their own decisions about the legalities of your hides.....will be inconsistant, will be judgemental, maybe even a little prejudice (if someone just doesn't like that type of hide on that day)...etc.

 

If this is such a problem......... then Groundspeak needs to get more volunteer reviewers in every area/community so the reviewers can actually visit the caches directly and make their own decisions of what's legal / or not and what's safe or not. Having fewer people make those decisions the better. And not only that....have these legality issues corrected before the cache is even published.

Edited by Lieblweb
Link to post

 

People have been harrassed by cache owners when posting an NA on a cache as noted in various threads here which has resulted in people not reporting caches which are in breech of the guidelines.

 

If you knowingly put a cache on the site in breech of the guidelines you likely wouldn't be too thrilled if it was pointed out by someone.

 

How often does this harrassment occur? So you're willing to ding all the responsible hiders for the sake of the fewer bad apples?

 

And you say....'knowingly'

How often do new people hide caches who are unaware of the guidelines? Do they need to be reported and 'dinged' for a newbie mistake? You'll be turning people away from this hobby....

 

The thought of allowing the entire geocaching community make their own decisions about the legalities of your hides.....will be inconsistant, will be judgemental, maybe even a little prejudice (if someone just doesn't like that type of hide on that day)...etc.

 

If this is such a problem......... then Groundspeak needs to get more volunteer reviewers in every area/community so the reviewers can actually visit the caches directly and make their own decisions of what's legal / or not and what's safe or not. Having fewer people make those decisions the better. And not only that....have these legality issues corrected before the cache is even published.

 

When I send an email to the local reviewer, pointing out a cache that may be in violation of the guidelines, they'll post a note on the listing and/or send an email to the cache owner. Usually as a question vice complaint. "I heard from a cacher, and they think this may be too close to the train tracks/may be on posted land, etc". The cache owner then is given time to respond or rectify the problem. This is how I see the "Report" button working. A person hits "Report", selects the reason from a very short list, adds some text explaining the situation and done.

Link to post

Instead of creating a whole new feature, how about changing the name of the Needs Archive log to "Needs Reviewer Attention" (where've I heard that before?) and also providing a check box/radio button next to the "Submit Log" with the option "Remain Anonymous - Reviewer's Eyes Only", or similar.

 

MrsB

Link to post

Instead of creating a whole new feature, how about changing the name of the Needs Archive log to "Needs Reviewer Attention" (where've I heard that before?) and also providing a check box/radio button next to the "Submit Log" with the option "Remain Anonymous - Reviewer's Eyes Only", or similar.

 

This is the most feasible solution I think at the current state of the site.

NRA has been floating around for a while, but with an added 'Anonymity' option (whether that means it's public but anonymous, thus readable by anyone for the listing, or if it's only sent to the reviewer) - I think that covers all that's been being discussed.

 

There are two main concerns here that I've seen:

1) Safety issues with a cache (quite subjective and easily abused)

2) Guideline infractions with a cache (this will be rare, but presumes reviewer knowledge and owner honesty)

 

#2 was the primary reason for the "Report" button suggestion, because:

1) Needs Archived logs have gone unnoticed (this seems to be regional and dependent on reviewers)

2) Direct contact with reviewers sometimes go ignored

3) Some COs do ignore guidelines and are dishonest about a cache

4) some cachers avoid posting NA logs for reasons of anonymity

5) Cache finders would like to know if there are guideline infraction concerns

6) Not every cacher/owner or reviewer is perfect and common sensical

 

I personally find it amazing that some reviewers do nothing about NA logs, in some reported cases for years (as per comments in this thread). But IF there is indeed a guideline infraction, and any one of those conditions are true in that listing's context, then yes I think a 'report' option in some manner would be very beneficial - so cachers at least have foreknowledge of a potential outstanding issue with the listing itself -- not a simple safety concern, but an actual unresolved problem with the listing which is not necessarily reflected in NM or NA logs.

 

Caching community ethics and social dynamics vary greatly from region to region, bother of players and reviewers. To presume that just because there are no problems "here" that it's fine everywhere else I think is a mistake.

 

Practical suggestion:

I'd support the "Needs Archived" log changing to a "Needs Reviewer Attention" (remove the 'needs archived' option), with the log text to describe the problem and/or provide a category, and an option to post publicly, publicly & anonymous, or reviewer only (though displaying an NRA attribute, just as the NM icon is set up right now). When posting an NRA log, a visible disclaimer about what should be included should be shown before the form entry to direct people for proper use of the feature (and in what cases a NM log or reviewer contact should be used instead). Perhaps even provide a link from THAT page to the reviewer's profile or a messaging feature, as an easy way for people to contact the reviewer who published the cache (rather than having to scroll to the end of the posted logs to find the reviewer, visit the profile, then manually contact).

 

The benefits, I think, of this adjustment vastly outweigh the drawbacks and risks for abuse. If an owner disagrees with NRA flags on his cache, he can contact the reviewer to analyze and have them removed if they are inappropriate.

Optional anonymity of the reporter and clarity of the issue are important here. Make it lengthy, or as annoying as possible to be abused (and consequently encourage its use only when absolutely necessary).

That would get my vote

Link to post

Instead of creating a whole new feature, how about changing the name of the Needs Archive log to "Needs Reviewer Attention" (where've I heard that before?) and also providing a check box/radio button next to the "Submit Log" with the option "Remain Anonymous - Reviewer's Eyes Only", or similar.

 

MrsB

 

That sounds like a better option.

 

I never understood why they had the 'Needs Archived' button. I mean - IMO, that decision should only be made by the owner or the reviewer. Let the complaints and/or a 'Needs Reviewers Attention' log start the archiving process (if needed)

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...
×
×
  • Create New...