an apology

[nobby.nobbs]

I think I need to say sorry for rabble rousing and causing trouble. I may have been over zealous in my methods to raise an issue or two.

Thank you all who have agreed, disagreed, been hypocritical and generally discussed these matters.

 

I tried to explain to someone last night the reasons behind it so I'll try and explain it here too.

I have been feeling disenfranchised by the nearly impossible task of having a meaningful discussion with a chance of altering an issue.

Reviewers have a difficult task but at the end of the day you signed up for it. We never had a say in your appointment and you're not really all that accountable.

If we raise issues here and list examples we get told not to like naughty kids because "mistakes happen" if we don't evidence our argument we get stone walled. Told that the adults are discussing the matter and we will be given their divine judgements soon. It's even suggested that we should calm the f down because we're doing ourselves no favours. Which suggests we will be punished.

The only other option people have is to kowtow to the deities and alter and amend until their tick boxes are satisfied.

So I over reacted and made enough noise for Sandy to hear me. This made me and the ideas bad but I fail to see how else we're meant to get heard when the reviewers et al are too busy preening to listen and challenge existing imbalances .

 

I'm going to get the usual suspects now saying very predictable responses and I thank them for that, I can only hope that there are one or two souls who feel as strongly as I do that a small group of people have lost sight of their complete role.

Maybe it Is time for fresh thinking maybe not.

 

But sorry for having disturbed some peoples slumber.

[+Us 4 and Jess]

Hiya Nobby

 

I was going to say that was very manly of you to appologise, but then I thought what the hell has he go to appologise for?

 

A discussion forum is for discussions is it not?

 

I did not agree with you were proposing for camping events and I said that on the thread and explained why, as Lilian said we will have to agree to disagree and move on like adults do, there were a lot of folks involved in the camping thread that I know have personally met and that I really do like and I respect their opinion, I have no grudges against any of the folks I disagreed with, I just gave my personal opinion (and I wasn't even shot down for a change )

 

What I do agree with is that our mods and out reviewers are following the rules/guidelines of an American company, I have nothing against any of them either they are simply doing what they have been told to do......but we are not America our rules/guidelines should not be the same as theirs the laws of our lands differ greatly, and maybe the big man and his company should consider this and give reviewers and mods from every country not just the UK a little bit more flexibilty..by this I mean..

 

I presume Dave would be the top man for the UK so if a proposal was put to him that differs slighlty from what is the "norm" to GC, then he could go to them and say Joe Bloggs would like to know about blah de blah it is different here in the UK to what it is in the USA ... would it be possible for us to do this? At the end of the day they can say yes or no but it would be nice for us to be able to just ask and explain the differences instead of being told to sit down and shut up as we are being told at the moment.............those of us who have been here a few year will know how many people were banned several years back for voicing their opinions, when people like Moss Trooper are banned for saying what he thought.. then I do agree it feels like we are being ran by a dictatorship who is not willing to listen to its members, so we sit down shut up and keep paying like good children and they know it they have us by the short and curlies and they know that too...I am sure they enjoy a bit of the UK rabble rousing too though

 

M

Edited February 1, 2012 by Us 4 and Jess

[+mollyjak]

It takes a person with integrity to apologise on a public forum.

 

BUT I agree with Mandy - this is a public forum regarding a hobby we share and in my mind you have no reason to apologise.

 

This is where we can air our views and hopefully continue to take this game/hobby/pastime/obsession forward.

 

Lilian

[nobby.nobbs]

Thank you

[Is lost]

When I first read the thread title, I hoped that the Apology was for the way that you had spoken about the Reviewers, and for the way your original request for change had degenerated into a very personal campaign.

Sadly I was wrong.

While I agree with Lilian,This is where we can air our views and hopefully continue to take this game/hobby/pastime/obsession forward.

 

This thread did not just address the camping and caching issues. In fact, I thought you were making a good and valid point about the camping event requirements, you had the ear of the people who could make changes, and the points you made were fair.

The ultimate deterioration into a battle with the current reviewers quite frankly, turned the tide.

Insulting the very people you were hoping to assist you in making changes, was, in my opinion, utterly idiotic.

 

As for claiming that the Reviewers are

too busy preening to listen and challenge existing imbalances

a small group of people have lost sight of their complete role

 

Maybe it Is time for fresh thinking maybe not

 

Instead of shouting from the outside, why not try to effect change from the inside and apply to join them? You've clearly got a lot of time on your hands.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=278

[+The Hornet]

Nobby, I think your words might be a little intemperate but I understand where you are coming from and given my experiences I can sympathise to some extent. When Dave (the short, fat bearded one!! ) and I resigned it was because of the very same concern about our inability to have a meaningful say in the way we were doing things here. It's not worth dwelling over nor repeating the arguments, but suffice it to say that after a long break I see little change. If anything things have become even more homogeneous and "Corporate" than way back then.

 

I would suggest you keep on railing against what you disagree with but my advice would be to minimise emotion while clearly stating your views (which are already very clear). Nobody could deny you the opportunity to say what you feel on a discussion forum.

 

Could they?!

[+The Hornet]

Instead of shouting from the outside, why not try to effect change from the inside and apply to join them? You've clearly got a lot of time on your hands.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=278

As you seem fairly new in terms of forum posts and caches found may I let you know that you don't apply to become a reviewer, you are selected by those already in place. If you "rock the boat" you almost certainly will be blackballed by those who approve appointments.

[+The Blorenges]

The link above says,

 

"If you'd like to become a cache reviewer, we encourage you to build on your skills and experience needed for the role. If you feel you are currently qualified to serve in this role, please contact us and describe your qualifications"

 

and that's a very recent addition (updated January 2012) to that particular page in the Help Center.

 

So there's nothing wrong with expressing your interest/great desire to become a reviewer directly to Groundspeak.

 

MrsB

[+Mallah]

I thought being asked to be a reviewer was some form of punishment , bit like Jury Service!!!

Just think of all those thousands of caches you have to review every week and then the abuse you get for doing it .

[+Red Duster]

I thought being asked to be a reviewer was some form of punishment , bit like Jury Service!!!

Just think of all those thousands of caches you have to review every week and then the abuse you get for doing it .

Yes, but jury service is only for a few weeks . Luckily Signal issues new reviewers with standard issue flak jackets and thick skin. Although I've worn mine out in the last week

 

Andy

Red Duster

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+Moote]

I think I need to say sorry for rabble rousing and causing trouble. I may have been over zealous in my methods to raise an issue or two.

Thank you all who have agreed, disagreed, been hypocritical and generally discussed these matters.

 

I tried to explain to someone last night the reasons behind it so I'll try and explain it here too.

I have been feeling disenfranchised by the nearly impossible task of having a meaningful discussion with a chance of altering an issue.

Reviewers have a difficult task but at the end of the day you signed up for it. We never had a say in your appointment and you're not really all that accountable.

If we raise issues here and list examples we get told not to like naughty kids because "mistakes happen" if we don't evidence our argument we get stone walled. Told that the adults are discussing the matter and we will be given their divine judgements soon. It's even suggested that we should calm the f down because we're doing ourselves no favours. Which suggests we will be punished.

The only other option people have is to kowtow to the deities and alter and amend until their tick boxes are satisfied.

So I over reacted and made enough noise for Sandy to hear me. This made me and the ideas bad but I fail to see how else we're meant to get heard when the reviewers et al are too busy preening to listen and challenge existing imbalances .

 

I'm going to get the usual suspects now saying very predictable responses and I thank them for that, I can only hope that there are one or two souls who feel as strongly as I do that a small group of people have lost sight of their complete role.

Maybe it Is time for fresh thinking maybe not.

 

But sorry for having disturbed some peoples slumber.

I find the Reviewers are less than helpful at providing meaningful information to a simple question. For instance I have asked what would be an allowable way to add links to places link Supermarkets and all that any Reviewer has written has really skirted around the subject, but recently a Reviewer came in heavy handed on a Cachers inclusion on there GC.com event page. If they are not prepared to set a standard, then how can they justify any requests to remove information. There must be some standard, or is it all big secrets that only the grown-ups are allowed to know.

 

Another thing I have noticed is the over zealous editing of post; where a cacher had written "There are so many now... does anybody really give a toss who thay are? " and a Forum Mod edited that to say "There are so many now... does anybody really {content removed by mod} who thay are? " To be honest, the Mod was too over the top, as the word Toss is in no way rude, only if you make it rude in your own tiny mind.

 

So lets start respecting the None-Mod / Reviewer Geocacher, after all life without stress is far better than stressing yourself because the children have been a little cheeky!

Edited February 2, 2012 by Moote

[+The Hornet]

Another thing I have noticed is the over zealous editing of post; where a cacher had written "There are so many now... does anybody really give a toss who thay are? " and a Forum Mod edited that to say "There are so many now... does anybody really {content removed by mod} who thay are? " To be honest, the Mod was too over the top, as the word Toss is in no way rude, only if you make it rude in your own tiny mind.

 

So lets start respecting the None-Mod / Reviewer Geocacher, after all life without stress is far better than stressing yourself because the children have been a little cheeky!

Be fair, they did admit their overzealousness in that case apologised. However some of the automatic forum censoring does assume everyone in the world speaks a language originating somewhere mid-way between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and has the same values and customs as the inhabitants of that region. The fact that it has been pointed out many times over the years and nothing has been done about it very irritating. But hey, I get easily irritated these days

[nobby.nobbs]

Red Duster, you must get a tremendous amount of hassle, justified and not.

It does still come down to a simple fact though. Not one of the paying or non paying customers of Groundspeak had any say in your nomination. None of them voted for you. None of them know your views on any subject.

We are not privy to the dynamics and beliefs of each of the reviewers. Who favours what. At the end of the day you could all be sat on your private forum picking the next reviewer on the basis of who is most likely to be the biggest yes person.

We should get to see the deliberations of that forum, you're there partly as representatives of the company but also partly for us. Either way those discussions should be visible for the scrutiny of the customers.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I do sympathise with your general drift, Nobby. It does annoy me a lot when we get treated like kids, and reviewers give the impression (inadvertently, no doubt) that they are part of an exclusive club to which we are very much barred.

 

I think that the problem has its source in Groundspeak's efforts to present a corporate and professional image to the world. Unfortunately this has pervaded to areas where it's not really appropriate, and led to some people becoming convinced that they are part of some sort of important quasi-governmental business that needs policies and regulations, and has to exert control over its customers. In reality, it's running a couple of web sites that help with a hobby. And not running them particularly well, either!

It just so happens that there's not much money to be made in this line of business, and so the competition is very weak.

 

I would just remind people that 99% of geocaching is about having a focus to a nice trip out, enjoying messing around with GPS gadgets and maps, and ticking off collections of caches. Groundspeak, reviewers, rules, feuds, cache events, policies, committees, landowner problems, forum discussions and so on are in the other 1% and have that level of importance. So keep it in perspective.

[+The Growler]

Never forget that a forum is, well, just that. A forum.

Edited February 3, 2012 by The Growler

[+Red Duster]

Red Duster, you must get a tremendous amount of hassle, justified and not.

It does still come down to a simple fact though. Not one of the paying or non paying customers of Groundspeak had any say in your nomination. None of them voted for you. None of them know your views on any subject.

We are not privy to the dynamics and beliefs of each of the reviewers. Who favours what. At the end of the day you could all be sat on your private forum picking the next reviewer on the basis of who is most likely to be the biggest yes person.

We should get to see the deliberations of that forum, you're there partly as representatives of the company but also partly for us. Either way those discussions should be visible for the scrutiny of the customers.

I don't get a lot of hassle, just a bit now and again. The vast majority of messages I get are thank-yous and these are what makes it worth while.

All of the other reviewers globally had an input in my appointment and they are customers whilst Groundspeak had the final decision. I will agree that the majority of the customers had no input. However how many other businesses allow their customers to have an input into the selection of those delivering their services?

I regularly attend meets as do the other reviewers and have been known to express my personal views to those that ask/listen/care . My personal views and beliefs do not affect my reviewing as I have often published caches as Red Duster that I wouldn't want to search for as Unobtainium (previously Andy K!) and I know the other reviewers have and will continue to do this. If you would like to get to know your local reviewer, I would suggest watching your local events and attend one when he/she is also attending.

As a reviewer I am a volunteer to Groundspeak and I do not represent Geocachers. The GAGB committee are elected and do represent Geocachers in the UK.

The reviewers discussions are private intentionally to maintain the confidentiality that Geocachers must be able to expect. These will not be made public, but our actions are obviously subject to scrutiny .

 

Andy

Red Duster

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+The Hornet]

As a reviewer I am a volunteer to Groundspeak and I do not represent Geocachers. The GAGB committee are elected and do represent Geocachers in the UK.

Hmm? GAGB are elected and represent a small proportion of UK cachers. While they do a reasonable job I would suggest they hold little influence within Groundspeak. Reviewers have a hand in every single Groundspeak cache created in the UK. They have a direct line into the community of similar reviewers around the world (the Reviewers' Watering Hole or whatever it's called these days) and it is this community which DOES have influence on Groundspeak's management.

 

I would argue that UK reviewers ought to be using that forum to argue for the benefit of UK cachers. They OUGHT to be using their unique position to represent the rest of us. I know from personal experience that this used to be the case, not just me but my predecessors as well. If current UK reviewers believe they have no role to play in representing the rest of us then you have all gone down in my estimation.

 

Sigh!

[+Happy Humphrey]

As a reviewer I am a volunteer to Groundspeak and I do not represent Geocachers. The GAGB committee are elected and do represent Geocachers in the UK.

Hmm? GAGB are elected and represent a small proportion of UK cachers. While they do a reasonable job I would suggest they hold little influence within Groundspeak. Reviewers have a hand in every single Groundspeak cache created in the UK. They have a direct line into the community of similar reviewers around the world (the Reviewers' Watering Hole or whatever it's called these days) and it is this community which DOES have influence on Groundspeak's management.

 

I would argue that UK reviewers ought to be using that forum to argue for the benefit of UK cachers. They OUGHT to be using their unique position to represent the rest of us. I know from personal experience that this used to be the case, not just me but my predecessors as well. If current UK reviewers believe they have no role to play in representing the rest of us then you have all gone down in my estimation.

 

Sigh!

I agree with all that, and I expect reviewers to fight our corner hard if being asked to apply an inappropriate rule. If you're a reviewer and you've accepted without question any rule which you think is wrong then shame on you. AFAIK Groundspeak could do no more than sack you, and as you're not being paid they need you more than you need them. If all UK reviewers agree that a rule needs changing then Groundspeak would have to change it or sack the lot and I don't think that the latter is likely.

 

The GAGB should also make representations, but as The Hornet says they should bear in mind that they can't claim to speak for all geocachers, and reviewers shouldn't expect them to be able to influence Groundspeak decisions on their own.

 

I would hope that reviewers realise that although they work under the umbrella of Groundspeak, what they're doing always has to be entirely for the benefit of geocachers. Otherwise they'd never get a single suitable volunteer to agree to do the job unpaid.

[+The Hornet]

If all UK reviewers agree that a rule needs changing then Groundspeak would have to change it or sack the lot and I don't think that the latter is likely.

Really?!!

[+Happy Humphrey]

If all UK reviewers agree that a rule needs changing then Groundspeak would have to change it or sack the lot and I don't think that the latter is likely.

Really?!!

Well if they did sack the lot, I don't know how they'd get new volunteers. I don't know how many reviewers there are now but there seems to be quite a few, and I have no idea why anyone would want the job so I don't imagine there's a big queue. Anyway, I'd be suspicious of anyone who's eager to be put forward. You'd wonder about their motives!

[+Pharisee]

T

If all UK reviewers agree that a rule needs changing then Groundspeak would have to change it or sack the lot and I don't think that the latter is likely.

Really?!!

Well if they did sack the lot, I don't know how they'd get new volunteers. I don't know how many reviewers there are now but there seems to be quite a few, and I have no idea why anyone would want the job so I don't imagine there's a big queue. Anyway, I'd be suspicious of anyone who's eager to be put forward. You'd wonder about their motives!

 

They'd do what they've done in the past... Use American reviewers That would be a lot worse than the bunch we have now

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think that when they did that there were only a couple of reviewers (and a lot fewer caches!). Having said that, our local reviewer lives about 300 miles away, and it doesn't seem to cause too many problems.

[nobby.nobbs]

It is good to have honesty from a reviewer saying that he has been instructed, presumably, that he represents the company and not the UK cachers. It does make me question regarding the selection process and who they are picking.

I don't mean that in a disrespectful manner just you're a UK cacher yourself and you've been asked to work for free for a company, you are then instructed that you will follow religiously the policy as interpreted by person or persons unknown without question. I say interpreted because it has become clear that there are different beliefs held by different reviewers all around the world.

 

So why do the job if you openly say that you're not going to stand up for UK cachers? Surely that only means that you're doing it for the kudos and ego trip? Again I know that there are many people that do that so that's fine but not often admitted to.

 

I speak from experience of the GAGB, we all know that it's mostly toothless. They rarely make a stand, they don't carry a mandate because hardly anybody votes for them and if they do make a stand they hit the brick wall of the reviewers.

 

It's been said that we would end up with American reviewers......how exactly would we notice the change....except that we'd be able to publish many caches that we cant at the moment.

[Alan White]

It is good to have honesty from a reviewer saying that he has been instructed, presumably, that he represents the company and not the UK cachers.

I think it's been obvious for many years - even before Pete and Dave resigned - that Groundspeak regards reviewers as employees of the company, with all that that implies, rather than representatives of UK cachers. It used to be the case that reviewers were well known and highly regarded in the caching community and were seen as leaders and guides in everything to do with caching.

 

Those days are long gone and we must now see reviewers as no different from employees of any other organistion that one comes into contact with in daily life. They're just like a customer service representative of, say, your ISP. You present them with a piece of work - a request for more disk space or to publish a cache - and they'll do it within the constraints set by the company they work for, as they understand them.

 

I speak from experience of the GAGB, we all know that it's mostly toothless. They rarely make a stand, they don't carry a mandate because hardly anybody votes for them and if they do make a stand they hit the brick wall of the reviewers.

As the function of representing and supporting UK cachers is no longer with the reviewers then who should do it? Surely GAGB. Sadly, as you - a former committee member as I recall - say, it does a very poor of it. GAGB, if it can't get satisfaction from Groundspeak, should be saying to UK cachers: "Sorry, we tried. Why not have a look over there?". But that's a new thread, and one better placed on GAGB's forums.

 

It's been said that we would end up with American reviewers......how exactly would we notice the change....except that we'd be able to publish many caches that we cant at the moment.

...and not be able to publish many that you can. Better the devil you know...

Edited February 6, 2012 by Alan White