Jump to content

Review vs Approve


GeoBain

Recommended Posts

Maybe you are not understanding the agenda guideline.

 

There is a difference between "VFW Post 405" and "Remember the Vets of Post 405."

 

The first just states a name, the second one attempts to get you to act upon something.

 

I'll grant you that I think the agenda rule is kind of dumb. They'd rather kill all agendas rather than get into arguments with people about which agendas are honorable. But that is what happens when people constantly push the limits. We force them to turn it into a black and white issue.

Link to comment

on the topic of electrical equipment. what if the container hidden on the electrical box is extremely distinguishable? (like red container out of sight from muggles on a green box)

 

i mean yes the owner would have the right to throw it away but so what? that is an inherent risk with all geocaches.

Link to comment

on the topic of electrical equipment. what if the container hidden on the electrical box is extremely distinguishable? (like red container out of sight from muggles on a green box)

 

i mean yes the owner would have the right to throw it away but so what? that is an inherent risk with all geocaches.

 

That is better discussed in the original thread on about electrical equipment.

Link to comment
Basically, since I said something to the effect of Stop by and take a minute to remember our veterans, [NC Reviewer] would not approve it.

 

http://coord.info/GC1A547

 

NC Reviewer Published it. Along with about 20 other like it.

I see a big difference there. The first is telling me to do something. That's an agenda. The second is informational/historical and doesn't give an opinion or tell me to do something. (Well, it does tell me to "explore Kinston" but exploring an area is one of the goals of geocaching.)

Link to comment

on the topic of electrical equipment. what if the container hidden on the electrical box is extremely distinguishable? (like red container out of sight from muggles on a green box)

 

i mean yes the owner would have the right to throw it away but so what? that is an inherent risk with all geocaches.

I suppose the relevance of this post is "would a reviewer APPROVE of the red cache on the green box, while not approving of a disguised electrical junction box that looks like the real one next to it?

 

Since I've seen both types submitted to me for review with solid proof of permission, and both types submitted with no mention of permission, I publish 'em all. I am not paid enough to have a crystal ball to figure out exactly how and where each cache is hidden, or whether it's hidden with permission. If I took the time to ask those questions for every cache, it would become a full-time job and yeah, I'd want to be paid for that.

Link to comment

NC Reviewer Published it. Along with about 20 other like it.

 

I guess I'm not attuned as some folks. I'm just not seeing the agenda in that one, and more than likely would miss it in the other 20 as well. But thanks all the same.

 

Geeze... are you BLIND?

 

Enjoy the series; enjoy Kinston.

 

If that isn't an agenda, I don't know what is!!

Link to comment

I suppose the relevance of this post is "would a reviewer APPROVE of the red cache on the green box, while not approving of a disguised electrical junction box that looks like the real one next to it?

 

Since I've seen both types submitted to me for review with solid proof of permission, and both types submitted with no mention of permission, I publish 'em all. I am not paid enough to have a crystal ball to figure out exactly how and where each cache is hidden, or whether it's hidden with permission. If I took the time to ask those questions for every cache, it would become a full-time job and yeah, I'd want to be paid for that.

Assuming you are serious in this post, it is an astonishing admission. The supply of volunteers is potentially much larger, so why the artificial scarcity? Why are you put into a position where you do not have time to perform your duties in anything other than a perfunctory fashion?

 

Maybe you have been doing this for too long and you've grown cynical, but from your description, most of the reviewing could be done just as well by a small shell script (I suggest naming it honey_badger.sh).

Link to comment

http://coord.info/GC1A547

 

NC Reviewer Published it. Along with about 20 other like it.

I'm sorry you're having such an issue with all of this. The cache you cite is no different than me putting out a cache named, "Pearl Harbor" or "Industrial Revolution" The cache is named after an event, and discussed that this person's context leading to the placement of the cache.

 

I could have a cache inspired by another event published next to a related site. Same difference. We don't have to make things "religious" unless they are proselytizing. Your example does not. It is a cache about a historical event.

 

NCReviewer is a reasonable person. Don't let this get to you.

Link to comment

I suppose the relevance of this post is "would a reviewer APPROVE of the red cache on the green box, while not approving of a disguised electrical junction box that looks like the real one next to it?

 

Since I've seen both types submitted to me for review with solid proof of permission, and both types submitted with no mention of permission, I publish 'em all. I am not paid enough to have a crystal ball to figure out exactly how and where each cache is hidden, or whether it's hidden with permission. If I took the time to ask those questions for every cache, it would become a full-time job and yeah, I'd want to be paid for that.

Assuming you are serious in this post, it is an astonishing admission. The supply of volunteers is potentially much larger, so why the artificial scarcity? Why are you put into a position where you do not have time to perform your duties in anything other than a perfunctory fashion?

 

Maybe you have been doing this for too long and you've grown cynical, but from your description, most of the reviewing could be done just as well by a small shell script (I suggest naming it honey_badger.sh).

We could bring on 1,000 volunteers instead of 200, and quiz each and every owner about permission, exact cache location, hiding technique and container. Good luck obtaining consistent review results from that bigger pool, since the forums are already filled with complaints of "inconsistency" between humans.

 

Instead of that, I'm quite happy with the current system, where I enjoy volunteering several hours per day to review caches and moderate the forums. Technological improvements by Groundspeak have made the reviewing process quite a bit more efficient than it was in 2003 when I started. If I didn't enjoy the experience, I'd stop doing it.

Link to comment
I am not paid enough to have a crystal ball to figure out exactly how and where each cache is hidden, or whether it's hidden with permission. If I took the time to ask those questions for every cache, it would become a full-time job and yeah, I'd want to be paid for that.

That makes perfect sense from the standpoint of our over-worked and (most definitely) underpaid reviewing volunteers. I totally get it.

 

Looking at it (it being the whole system) from an outsider's perspective, it raises some potentially uncomfortable questions though. I'd be careful.

Edited by addisonbr
Link to comment

We could bring on 1,000 volunteers instead of 200, and quiz each and every owner about permission, exact cache location, hiding technique and container. Good luck obtaining consistent review results from that bigger pool, since the forums are already filled with complaints of "inconsistency" between humans.

 

Instead of that, I'm quite happy with the current system, where I enjoy volunteering several hours per day to review caches and moderate the forums. Technological improvements by Groundspeak have made the reviewing process quite a bit more efficient than it was in 2003 when I started. If I didn't enjoy the experience, I'd stop doing it.

The reviewers, being human, will never be consistent, but I would hope there is a training program to mitigate the inconsistencies as much as possible. Even so, you'll always have complaints about consistency because geocaching attracts a lot of people who have very strong desires to have things a certain way. Their way. They tend to have pretty negative reactions when something happens to upset their expectations. The guidelines, as you know, have some gray areas which can be a problem for some. As this thread illustrates, many people expect the guidelines to be rigidly applied or they get kind of upset.

 

Having said that, I think Groundspeak makes the situation more difficult by including guidelines they you say you can't utilize. I think that is potentially a very unpleasant situation. What is a reasonable person to do?

 

I'm glad you are happy. I have a a lot of admiration for anyone that freely gives their time to help others.

Link to comment

NC Reviewer Published it. Along with about 20 other like it.

 

I guess I'm not attuned as some folks. I'm just not seeing the agenda in that one, and more than likely would miss it in the other 20 as well. But thanks all the same.

 

I don't see an agenda there either. It says "The Reformation is one of the most important historical events in Christian History", then gives a bit more detail.

 

However - reading back to the earlier quote in this thread (which was said to have come from the reviewer who approved the Reformation caches):

 

"Just imagine taking the word out and replacing it with KKK. Would it still be cool"

 

Now, imagine a cache which said "blah blah was one of the most important events in KKK history" I bet would not get published. And I'm not saying that it should, or trying to compare the KKK to Christians in any way. My only point is while in theory it's easy to say there are no agendas at all; in reality some judgement is needed. Or maybe that the "replace it with the KKK" explanation isn't a good one.

Link to comment

NC Reviewer Published it. Along with about 20 other like it.

 

I guess I'm not attuned as some folks. I'm just not seeing the agenda in that one, and more than likely would miss it in the other 20 as well. But thanks all the same.

 

I don't see an agenda there either. It says "The Reformation is one of the most important historical events in Christian History", then gives a bit more detail.

 

However - reading back to the earlier quote in this thread (which was said to have come from the reviewer who approved the Reformation caches):

 

"Just imagine taking the word out and replacing it with KKK. Would it still be cool"

 

Now, imagine a cache which said "blah blah was one of the most important events in KKK history" I bet would not get published. And I'm not saying that it should, or trying to compare the KKK to Christians in any way. My only point is while in theory it's easy to say there are no agendas at all; in reality some judgement is needed. Or maybe that the "replace it with the KKK" explanation isn't a good one.

 

Apples to oranges. Whereas the Reformation is an event in a worldwide philosophical change (it isn't so much about religion as it is about the way people think about religion), an event in the KKK's history is much smaller in scale of impact and recognition. If someone creates a cache about events in the KKK's history, it would simply go against the "family-friendly" focus of geocaching.

 

Now, the KKK is generalized as containing men in the Protestant denomination of Christianity. But they are also a terrorist organization. However, if someone makes a cache near Stone Mountain and mentions the relationship to the second KKK in historical context, I see no difference. That cache could be approved.

 

Make the same cache at Stone Mountain about the KKK and make comments in the title or description that are clearly proselytizing, and it won't get approved. The same is true of a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc cache created to preach.

 

I guess I see the line, but it might be too thin for others to see?

Link to comment

NC Reviewer Published it. Along with about 20 other like it.

 

I guess I'm not attuned as some folks. I'm just not seeing the agenda in that one, and more than likely would miss it in the other 20 as well. But thanks all the same.

 

I don't see an agenda there either. It says "The Reformation is one of the most important historical events in Christian History", then gives a bit more detail.

 

However - reading back to the earlier quote in this thread (which was said to have come from the reviewer who approved the Reformation caches):

 

"Just imagine taking the word out and replacing it with KKK. Would it still be cool"

 

Now, imagine a cache which said "blah blah was one of the most important events in KKK history" I bet would not get published. And I'm not saying that it should, or trying to compare the KKK to Christians in any way. My only point is while in theory it's easy to say there are no agendas at all; in reality some judgement is needed. Or maybe that the "replace it with the KKK" explanation isn't a good one.

 

Here is the Response when I asked about something for a Cache To Eagle Series. This is a cooperation between Geocaching.com and the Boy Scouts of America. The BSA has a geocaching Merit Badge and says to go online and create an account and hide a cache.

 

The Veterans one has been published. Thanks for your edits and understanding.

It should be enough to merely bring someone to a memorial and then let

them think or feel what they choose.

 

Same thought process for any listings that mention scouting. You can

say Scout Park was completed by Eagle Scouts. You can provide general

historical info about the property or scouting. You cannot say

something that promotes scouting.

 

If you aren't sure about your text, replace 'scouts' or 'veterans'

with 'KKK' or Radical Muslims' or some other group you do not agree

with. Then re-read your text and see if you find it distasteful or

disturbing. Granted this is a bit extreme, but it does provide an

interesting litmus test for agendas.

 

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help you. My

#1 goal is to help NC geocachers get their caches listed, not throw up

road blocks and deny that.

 

Thanks,

NCreviewer/matt

Volunteer geocaching.com reviewer

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Geocaching <noreply@geocaching.com> wrote:

> I have a question about another cache that I want to hide but I think that it might be denied.

>

> I want to hide one near a place called "Scout Park" It was finished as an Eagle Scout Project and is a well known place in our Community.

>

> I ask this because of the Boy Scout Reference. The main reason why I am asking is that I have done some research and noted that the Boy Scouts of America promoted geocaching.com by referring to them in the pursuit of the geocaching merit badge.

>

> I just wanted to make sure that this was something that I could start doing because of the previous promotions from the BSA.

>

> Please let me know. I have several ideas for hiding spots.

>

> ScoutDadNC

>

> User's Profile:

> http://coord.info/PR3QK4A

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------

> Forward abuse complaints to: contact@geocaching.com

>

>

 

BTW the veterans one went from a veterans reference to a simple. 1st hide.

Link to comment

ScoutDadNC, just to muddy the waters, when it comes to Scout caches, the BSA worked with Groundspeak, and got special permission for the 100 Years of Scouting caches, and the The Cache to Eagle caches.

These caches can have rather more BSA promotional language then you'd normally see on a cache page.

 

But with NCReviewers standards, it would not be published.

Link to comment

ScoutDadNC, just to muddy the waters, when it comes to Scout caches, the BSA worked with Groundspeak, and got special permission for the 100 Years of Scouting caches, and the The Cache to Eagle caches.

These caches can have rather more BSA promotional language then you'd normally see on a cache page.

 

But with NCReviewers standards, it would not be published.

 

A subforum that apparently is only visible if you're logged in:

 

Geocaching and Education Subforums

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=103

 

where you will find this subforum:

 

Youth Organizations & Clubs

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=108

Link to comment

Hi there,

 

I am only new at hiding caches and would like to know others views on the review/approval process.

 

As a cache owner, after you have enabled the listing with the reviewers notes, what should be the next step in the process?

 

I know that the reviewer Reviews, Approves (or Disables) and then Publishes the listing, but why should they have the permission to publish the listing at their convenience.

 

I think the reviewer should Review and Approve and mark the listing as 'Available for Publishing'. Then, it comes back to the Cache Owner for Enabling, so the Owner can choose what time he/she makes it available.

 

This would provide the Cache Owner with a little more control on when their cache is ready. Just in case there maybe some final maintenance/check required. Also reducing high muggle traffic spoiling FTFs

 

What do you think?

Link to comment

Hi there,

 

I am only new at hiding caches and would like to know others views on the review/approval process.

 

As a cache owner, after you have enabled the listing with the reviewers notes, what should be the next step in the process?

 

I know that the reviewer Reviews, Approves (or Disables) and then Publishes the listing, but why should they have the permission to publish the listing at their convenience.

 

I think the reviewer should Review and Approve and mark the listing as 'Available for Publishing'. Then, it comes back to the Cache Owner for Enabling, so the Owner can choose what time he/she makes it available.

 

This would provide the Cache Owner with a little more control on when their cache is ready. Just in case there maybe some final maintenance/check required. Also reducing high muggle traffic spoiling FTFs

 

What do you think?

 

Most reviewers will gladly postpone publishing if requested.

Link to comment

...what should be the next step in the process?

 

Usually waiting. Hopefully not a very long wait.

 

The other suggestions are intriguing, although I suspect the answer is, "...it's been that way since the beginning", and nobody has thought to question that part of the process.

 

You might think of posting the suggestion in the website discussion section:

 

Geocaching.com Website

 

Good luck!

Link to comment

Hi there,

 

I am only new at hiding caches and would like to know others views on the review/approval process.

 

As a cache owner, after you have enabled the listing with the reviewers notes, what should be the next step in the process?

 

I know that the reviewer Reviews, Approves (or Disables) and then Publishes the listing, but why should they have the permission to publish the listing at their convenience.

 

I think the reviewer should Review and Approve and mark the listing as 'Available for Publishing'. Then, it comes back to the Cache Owner for Enabling, so the Owner can choose what time he/she makes it available.

 

This would provide the Cache Owner with a little more control on when their cache is ready. Just in case there maybe some final maintenance/check required. Also reducing high muggle traffic spoiling FTFs

 

What do you think?

 

Most reviewers will gladly postpone publishing if requested.

+1

 

I've asked for a cache to be postponed on its publish time for many reasons. Just leave a Reviewer Note on the page after you have submitted it. Also, email your local reviewer and have a chat about what you are hoping to do.

Link to comment

Hi there,

 

I am only new at hiding caches and would like to know others views on the review/approval process.

 

As a cache owner, after you have enabled the listing with the reviewers notes, what should be the next step in the process?

 

I know that the reviewer Reviews, Approves (or Disables) and then Publishes the listing, but why should they have the permission to publish the listing at their convenience.

 

I think the reviewer should Review and Approve and mark the listing as 'Available for Publishing'. Then, it comes back to the Cache Owner for Enabling, so the Owner can choose what time he/she makes it available.

 

This would provide the Cache Owner with a little more control on when their cache is ready. Just in case there maybe some final maintenance/check required. Also reducing high muggle traffic spoiling FTFs

 

What do you think?

 

For one, when a cache is published it is done so in accordance with the guidelines in place at that time, as well as known land manager policies. Potentially a reviewer can make it available for publishing, and while the CO is sitting on it, perhaps the park it is in might change its geocaching rules. If the cache is then published it could make the reviewer look bad to the land manager. Many reviewers have forged positive relationships with land managers in their area and something like that can negatively impact that relationship.

 

The current system works has worked just fine. If your cache isn't ready for prime time, don't check the box saying that it is ready for review, or as Touchstone mentioned, ask your reviewer to publish on a certain date. The latter should only be used under special circumstances so as not to burden the reviewer with too many special requests. Not checking the box is the best way for the CO to handle caches that aren't completely ready to go.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Hi there,

 

I am only new at hiding caches and would like to know others views on the review/approval process.

 

As a cache owner, after you have enabled the listing with the reviewers notes, what should be the next step in the process?

 

I know that the reviewer Reviews, Approves (or Disables) and then Publishes the listing, but why should they have the permission to publish the listing at their convenience.

 

I think the reviewer should Review and Approve and mark the listing as 'Available for Publishing'. Then, it comes back to the Cache Owner for Enabling, so the Owner can choose what time he/she makes it available.

 

This would provide the Cache Owner with a little more control on when their cache is ready. Just in case there maybe some final maintenance/check required. Also reducing high muggle traffic spoiling FTFs

 

What do you think?

There was a suggestion that had some support in the old Feedback forum, that there be an option for a CO to designate a date / time for publication (I generally assumed that it would be an automated process, after the reviewer had clicked 'ok').

 

It had a ton of voting support; not sure what happened with it after the Feedback site went away though.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...