Jump to content

More democratic system to select reviewers


nthacker66

Recommended Posts

Please note - this isn't a topic to start a debate - just a suggestion. (

 

I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to grounspeak then the community does, that they are choosen in more democratic way - and with term limits.

 

State/regional reviewers serve some amount of time 3 - 4 years (just a suggestion) and nominated and elected by the local community - of course getting the final nod by Groundspeak.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a need for some sort of reviewer survey - a way for the community to let the reviewer and Groundspeak know how the reviewer is doing.

 

Thoughts?

Link to post

I guess I see a public vote ending up being more of a popularity contest. Except for my group of friends, I don't know who is doing what, and in what way people are contributing to the community. To me, this is something fun and I couldn't be bothered to do that kind of research to decide who is worthy of being a reviewer. I just don't care that much about what other people are doing.

 

While maybe not perfect, I think Groundspeak's method works satisfactorily, and doesn't really need to be changed.

Link to post

Groundspeak is not a democracy. It is a company that seeks profit. :)

 

But, as reviewers are volunteers that serves the community, yes, it would be great if the community has a word to say on the subject. If reviewers were GS employees, then I think nobody could interfere in their hiring.

Link to post

I guess I see a public vote ending up being more of a popularity contest. Except for my group of friends, I don't know who is doing what, and in what way people are contributing to the community. To me, this is something fun and I couldn't be bothered to do that kind of research to decide who is worthy of being a reviewer. I just don't care that much about what other people are doing.

 

While maybe not perfect, I think Groundspeak's method works satisfactorily, and doesn't really need to be changed.

 

In fact it could be easy - we get emails from grounspeak simply because we are members, it can be easily set up to send a link to folks in a region with a reviewer up for election.

 

I think the fact we have the same blood that runs geocaching tends to slow ideas down. Freshness always keeps things lively.

Link to post

How do you know the reviewers aren't helping the community? Don't they Review under a different name than they cache under. Seems to me that people are quick to jump on a reviewer without thinking that they are great cachers themselves.

Link to post

Please note - this isn't a topic to start a debate - just a suggestion. (

 

I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to grounspeak then the community does, that they are choosen in more democratic way - and with term limits.

 

State/regional reviewers serve some amount of time 3 - 4 years (just a suggestion) and nominated and elected by the local community - of course getting the final nod by Groundspeak.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a need for some sort of reviewer survey - a way for the community to let the reviewer and Groundspeak know how the reviewer is doing.

 

Thoughts?

 

Certainly one of the more unique and interesting suggestions ever made! You know, if you asked me 3 or 4 years ago, I would have said it's pretty ridiculous for an obviously profitable and growing by leaps and bounds Company to have "volunteers" doing work for them, but then Foursquare Labs, Inc., an even more successful company, came along in 2009, and basically has the same system (Superusers).

 

Some arguements against term limits would be that the reviewers (and Groundspeak) would argue that the ones in place, especially some of the senior ones, have worked diligently with the land managers in their area, and in many cases even negotiated local policies. And that they could be considered "experts" on them. The Senior reviewer for my State pretty much pre-dates any local Geocaching policies in the State.

 

And then there's that thing about how some of them choose to be anonymous. Or attempt to, while the curious out there speculate to no end on their true identity. :lol:

Link to post

Please note - this isn't a topic to start a debate - just a suggestion. (

 

I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to grounspeak then the community does, that they are choosen in more democratic way - and with term limits.

 

State/regional reviewers serve some amount of time 3 - 4 years (just a suggestion) and nominated and elected by the local community - of course getting the final nod by Groundspeak.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a need for some sort of reviewer survey - a way for the community to let the reviewer and Groundspeak know how the reviewer is doing.

 

Thoughts?

 

My thoughts are:

 

--the system ain't broke, no need to "fix" it

 

--trying to ensnare dedicated volunteers to do a thankless, meticulous job is very difficult. Trying to do it every 3 or 4 years would be ludicrous.

 

--training new reviewers every 3 or 4 years would be a massive undertaking, and a waste of resources. Experienced reviewers don't sprout overnight.

 

--an election by the "community" would be a big waste of time. Only those even the slightest bit interested would participate. Those with axes to grind would be interested, I suppose.

 

--"reviewer survey" would be a totally useless proposition, as well.

 

Groundspeak knows what they are doing. They have been doing it very well for some time now.

 

If you have a problem with a reviewer's decision, you can seek an appeal with Groundspeak.

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to post

Please note - this isn't a topic to start a debate - just a suggestion. (

 

I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to grounspeak then the community does, that they are choosen in more democratic way - and with term limits.

 

State/regional reviewers serve some amount of time 3 - 4 years (just a suggestion) and nominated and elected by the local community - of course getting the final nod by Groundspeak.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a need for some sort of reviewer survey - a way for the community to let the reviewer and Groundspeak know how the reviewer is doing.

 

Thoughts?

 

My thoughts are:

 

--the system ain't broke, no need to "fix" it

 

--trying to ensnare dedicated volunteers to do a thankless, meticulous job is very difficult. Trying to do it every 3 or 4 years would be ludicrous.

 

--training new reviewers every 3 or 4 years would be a massive undertaking, and a waste of resources. Experienced reviewers don't sprout overnight.

 

--an election by the "community" would be a big waste of time. Only those even the slightest bit interested would participate. Those with axes to grind would be interested, I suppose.

 

--"reviewer survey" would be a totally useless proposition, as well.

 

Groundspeak knows what they are doing. They have been doing it very well for some time now.

 

If you have a problem with a reviewer's decision, you can seek an appeal with Groundspeak.

 

 

B.

I agree with Pup Patrol and would like to add.....

 

 

 

OH GOD NO!!!! PLEASE DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post

In fact it could be easy - we get emails from grounspeak simply because we are members, it can be easily set up to send a link to folks in a region with a reviewer up for election.

 

I think the fact we have the same blood that runs geocaching tends to slow ideas down. Freshness always keeps things lively.

 

That's a bit lengthy below. So the short version. I'm not involved in Geocaching socially enough to know who to vote for. My ideas of what makes a good reviewer may differ from GS's Many would vote for friends/against enemies. I think old blood helps more than it hurts.

 

____

 

Sure, balloting could easily be done, but being sent an email doesn't help me. If I got an email from GS saying "Bob Geocacher and Sally Geocacher are both up for election as a reviewer in your area, who do you vote for?" I wouldn't know who to vote for. They very likely could live in the same town and I wouldn't know any more about them than the fact that maybe I've found some of their caches. I'm not very socially active among cachers in the area, so I don't personally know anything about them. If I don't know them how can I decide that they're a good candidate?

 

You could send a list of contributions and achievements, but that's of little importance to me. I don't care if someone has placed 100 caches, and found 5000. I don't care if someone was a volunteer at an event. I don't know what exact combination of factors GS looks for in a reviewer, so I'm unqualified to make that decision for them.

 

I think that many people would simply vote for their friends anyhow.

 

I don't think that anything is slowed down by having the same reviewers in place. In some cases maybe it makes it better. Let's say we switch reviewers every 4 years. There will be a period during which the old reviewers don't care anymore, something of a Geocaching lame duck session. Then there will be an additional time during which the new reviewers are feeling out their responsibilites and taking more time. Plus some reviewers get to know people who place caches. It can make it easier for the reviewer to do their job knowing that Geocacher X always gets permission, generally places issue free caches, travels a lot, and is happy to maintain their caches 60 miles away. Reviewers don't have to look so closely at every detail of Geocacher X's submissions every time. While Geocacher Y has placed 2 caches that had problems, they don't maintain them, so subsequent submissions will need a closer review. A new reviewer isn't going to have this kind of knowledge that comes with doing the job.

Edited by Mr. 0
Link to post

And then there's that thing about how some of them choose to be anonymous. Or attempt to, while the curious out there speculate to no end on their true identity. :lol:

 

To Mr. Yuck's point, having an election would take away the ability for a reviewer to be anonymous. Without that sort of screen, reviewers would open them selves up to personal attacks whenever somebody doesn't get to place thier cache. I'd guess over time nobody would want to be a reviewer because they'd get tired of people complaining to them personally.

Link to post

..and even though i said it wasnt a complaint - people continue to assume that is how the suggestion origiated.

 

I will explain, just this one time - it sprung from the idea that reviewers do more then just review. They also represent the community of cachers, not just to Groundspeak but to the rest of the real world. And just as someone mentioned that some reviewers have made leaps and bounds with land managers, some have also pissed off some land managers. Or some are plain too introverted or too passive to do so. (Fortunately, caching is not the domain of them nor Groundspeak, so technically any of us could speak on the sport to a public official). On the idea of this anonynimity - a) i never liked it and B) most active cachers know who their reviewer is anyway. I never liked the idea because again coming back to the premis that reviewers are more then just reviewers - wouldnt you like to know who is representing you?

 

That is all I will say on it, as I said, this wasn't supposed to be a argument. Thanks to those who managed to assume things and peak an argument, well done as usual.

Link to post

Please note - this isn't a topic to start a debate - just a suggestion. (

 

I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to grounspeak then the community does, that they are choosen in more democratic way - and with term limits.

 

State/regional reviewers serve some amount of time 3 - 4 years (just a suggestion) and nominated and elected by the local community - of course getting the final nod by Groundspeak.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a need for some sort of reviewer survey - a way for the community to let the reviewer and Groundspeak know how the reviewer is doing.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thoughts? I think that you can't ask us not to debate and ask us for our thoughts in the same post. I think that this is code for, 'only post if you agree with me'.

Link to post

Please note - this isn't a topic to start a debate - just a suggestion. (

 

I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to grounspeak then the community does, that they are choosen in more democratic way - and with term limits.

 

State/regional reviewers serve some amount of time 3 - 4 years (just a suggestion) and nominated and elected by the local community - of course getting the final nod by Groundspeak.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a need for some sort of reviewer survey - a way for the community to let the reviewer and Groundspeak know how the reviewer is doing.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thoughts? I think that you can't ask us not to debate and ask us for our thoughts in the same post. I think that this is code for, 'only post if you agree with me'.

 

Or just a quick way of saying - be polite and cordial. Not use words such as "ludicrous" and "horrible idea" - but that would be asking too much of people on here to actually be polite and respectful now wouldn't it?

Link to post

snip...I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to Groundspeak then the community does,

Thoughts?

 

For the most part they are the voice of Groundspeak. Why would you assume the owners of this site would want that to change? They have a responsibility in this process and have to manage it as best they can.

Link to post
Choosing reviewers should be about their qualifications, as it is now. Not about a popularity contest.
+1

I see no advantage to this suggestion. I'm sure that any real problems with reviewers are brought to Groundspeak's attention via appeals and other direct contact with geocachers. And I'm sure they can distinguish between real problems and other complaints.

Link to post

Great idea. That means I can vote out-or rather not vote for-the reviewer who did not allow my cache that was close to a busy highway intersection with no place to park within 2 KM. Or the one who wouldn't allow my cache location because it was 158M from cache A and 160Mfrom cache B. The system could be abused. Also if there are problems with reviewers Groundspeak will look into it. Any conversation-reviewer notes, notes and log on cache pages and emails sent through the geocaching website can be tracked. If someone says the reviewer won't allow my cache for no reason-they can look through the notes and say-he told you it's too close to cache X but ig you move it across the street it will be fine. Groundspeak is a company and not a Democratic country--and therefore they get to make the decisions on what they do and who they choose to represent their company. The fact that they have in the past went with ideas from their users is a bonus. They could charge $500 a month for any access to the website and not allow caches within 10 miles of other one if they want, so I'm sure if they wanted the reviewers to be voted on they would have set that up.

Link to post

I will explain, just this one time - it sprung from the idea that reviewers do more then just review. They also represent the community of cachers, not just to Groundspeak but to the rest of the real world. And just as someone mentioned that some reviewers have made leaps and bounds with land managers, some have also pissed off some land managers. Or some are plain too introverted or too passive to do so.

OK, I don't have any idea what you're talking about, but tell me this: would democratically electing reviewers reduce the probability that they would piss off land managers? Off hand, I'd say being secretly selected by people with a vested interesting in avoiding pissing of land managers makes it much, much less likely for a reviewer to piss off a land manager. Indeed, we might very well expect reviewers running for election on the platform that they'll "deal" with annoying land managers.

Link to post

...most active cachers know who their reviewer is anyway.

If you mean we know the person or cacher behind the reviewer name, I'd say that's more the exception than the rule. There are plenty of reviewers that have chosen to remain anonymous. Of the three reviewers in this region, only one is "out", and the other two are not. The only people who know their true identities are probably their family and maybe a few very close caching friends (maybe not even them). With the amount of grief they receive, I don't blame them for staying anonymous.

 

As for reviewers ticking off land managers:

If you have evidence of this, feel free to report it to Groundspeak. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to investigate since, as you pointed out, the reviewers are in effect the public face of Groundspeak, and I'm sure they'd prefer to have reviewers building bridges than burning them.

 

Getting back to the original topic, I agree with Lil Devil's post. I'd much rather have a reviewer that does a good job and isn't liked by a handful of cachers than have a reviewer that's popular with everyone but doesn't even know the guidelines. By the very nature of the current selection process, reviewers are among the most experienced, respected, and knowledgeable cachers there are. That's the way I want it to be.

Link to post

Please note - this isn't a topic to start a debate - just a suggestion. (

 

I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to grounspeak then the community does, that they are choosen in more democratic way - and with term limits.

 

State/regional reviewers serve some amount of time 3 - 4 years (just a suggestion) and nominated and elected by the local community - of course getting the final nod by Groundspeak.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a need for some sort of reviewer survey - a way for the community to let the reviewer and Groundspeak know how the reviewer is doing.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thoughts? I think that you can't ask us not to debate and ask us for our thoughts in the same post. I think that this is code for, 'only post if you agree with me'.

 

Or just a quick way of saying - be polite and cordial. Not use words such as "ludicrous" and "horrible idea" - but that would be asking too much of people on here to actually be polite and respectful now wouldn't it?

 

Sorry if I sounded disrespectful, and for my delay in responding. Had to rush to work. I just don't think that it's fair to post potentially controversial topics and then ask people not to discuss them.

 

As far as the topic, I think that Groundspeak has the best of the best and I really don't see any reason why they should change the process that got them to that point.

Link to post

On the idea of this anonynimity - a) i never liked it and B) most active cachers know who their reviewer is anyway.

I have no idea who my reviewer is. Do you really think most active cachers do? I always assumed it was only the ones that were friends with the reviewer. I think you're imagining that all cachers in any given area tend to know each other, and I doubt that's even remotely true.

Link to post

I never liked the idea because again coming back to the premis that reviewers are more then just reviewers - wouldnt you like to know who is representing you?

Not really.

 

On the idea of this anonynimity - a) i never liked it and B) most active cachers know who their reviewer is anyway.

I have no idea who my reviewer is. Do you really think most active cachers do? I always assumed it was only the ones that were friends with the reviewer. I think you're imagining that all cachers in any given area tend to know each other, and I doubt that's even remotely true.

 

I have no idea who my reviewer is, either. I don't look upon a reviewer as anything more than the person that publishes the area caches and a resource I can use if I have an issue relating to a cache. I don't consider them my representative. As long as they want the position, handle the problem caches and publish caches according to the guidelines, I see no reason to force them out.

Link to post

On the idea of this anonynimity - a) i never liked it and B) most active cachers know who their reviewer is anyway.

I have no idea who my reviewer is. Do you really think most active cachers do? I always assumed it was only the ones that were friends with the reviewer. I think you're imagining that all cachers in any given area tend to know each other, and I doubt that's even remotely true.

 

I guess it depends on the area. Austria has 4 reviewers and 3 use their normal account for reviewing and the fourth mentions in his profile his player account which is a family account and only for that reason separated from the reviewer account. So in my country, yes, we all know who the reviewers are.

 

Cezanne

Link to post

On the idea of this anonynimity - a) i never liked it and B) most active cachers know who their reviewer is anyway.

I have no idea who my reviewer is. Do you really think most active cachers do? I always assumed it was only the ones that were friends with the reviewer. I think you're imagining that all cachers in any given area tend to know each other, and I doubt that's even remotely true.

 

I guess it depends on the area. Austria has 4 reviewers and 3 use their normal account for reviewing and the fourth mentions in his profile his player account which is a family account and only for that reason separated from the reviewer account. So in my country, yes, we all know who the reviewers are.

 

Cezanne

 

We have 5 reviewers for the province of Ontario. I'm sure some folks know their "real" identities. Certainly, some mega-event attendees and pie-throwers know who the Ontario reviewers are.

 

I don't. And I don't care.

 

It would take an extraordinary amount of effort to elect reviewers around the world on a regular basis. Reviewing caches would understandably take longer, as new reviewers got trained and up to speed. By the time they were comfortable and competent, it would be time to elect new ones.

 

A wasteful use of resources and time, as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

 

B.

Link to post

On the idea of this anonynimity - a) i never liked it and B) most active cachers know who their reviewer is anyway.

I have no idea who my reviewer is. Do you really think most active cachers do? I always assumed it was only the ones that were friends with the reviewer. I think you're imagining that all cachers in any given area tend to know each other, and I doubt that's even remotely true.

 

I guess it depends on the area. Austria has 4 reviewers and 3 use their normal account for reviewing and the fourth mentions in his profile his player account which is a family account and only for that reason separated from the reviewer account. So in my country, yes, we all know who the reviewers are.

 

Cezanne

 

We have 5 reviewers for the province of Ontario. I'm sure some folks know their "real" identities. Certainly, some mega-event attendees and pie-throwers know who the Ontario reviewers are.

 

I don't. And I don't care.

 

It would take an extraordinary amount of effort to elect reviewers around the world on a regular basis. Reviewing caches would understandably take longer, as new reviewers got trained and up to speed. By the time they were comfortable and competent, it would be time to elect new ones.

 

A wasteful use of resources and time, as far as I'm concerned.

 

B.

 

Well I mean if you're over 50 you can say I don't know who Lady Gaga is, and I don't care. :laughing: But the fact is all 5 Ontario Reviewers are "out" and don't hide their identities.

 

Some do, so don't. I doubt anyone has ever attempted to calculate a percentage for either faction for the entire volunteer reviewer community.

Link to post

We have 5 reviewers for the province of Ontario. I'm sure some folks know their "real" identities. Certainly, some mega-event attendees and pie-throwers know who the Ontario reviewers are.

 

I don't. And I don't care.

 

It would take an extraordinary amount of effort to elect reviewers around the world on a regular basis. Reviewing caches would understandably take longer, as new reviewers got trained and up to speed. By the time they were comfortable and competent, it would be time to elect new ones.

 

To clarify; I'm not in favour of the suggestion to elect reviewers. My comment was only with respect to the identity of reviewers.

If you happened to live in Austria, you would know the identity of all 4 reviewers even if you did not care or just started to cache recently.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to post

But the fact is all 5 Ontario Reviewers are "out" and don't hide their identities.

 

I must not be paying enough attention. I only know the player names for 2 of the 5.

 

B.

 

Let's see. 3 Southern Cal reviewers. One pulled a "Ringbone" on a cache I was watching so I learned who he is. One, I kind of have a feeling about. The third came on board about 9 months ago and we all had a lot of fun accusing our friend of being the new reviewer. He emphatically denies it and probably isn't, but it would have made sense. I pretty much figured out who one of the Northern Cal reviewers is though forum posts. Another state's reviewer lived in our area for a number of months and was upfront about his status. He even hands out geocoins that have each identity on either side.

 

I would think that the average geocacher doesn't even know their local reviewer's reviewer name, much less their player name. The so called ballot to elect a reviewer would be full of unfamiliar names, and maybe one that is recognized, which is the one that each cacher would vote for. Kind of like the way we elect politicians.

Link to post
Choosing reviewers should be about their qualifications, as it is now. Not about a popularity contest.
+1

I see no advantage to this suggestion. I'm sure that any real problems with reviewers are brought to Groundspeak's attention via appeals and other direct contact with geocachers. And I'm sure they can distinguish between real problems and other complaints.

 

I AGREE

 

Let Groundspeak pick based on skills not based on popularity. And let Groundspeak decide the fate of the reviewers, and not leave in the hands of some disgruntled cachers.

Link to post
Choosing reviewers should be about their qualifications, as it is now. Not about a popularity contest.
+1

I see no advantage to this suggestion. I'm sure that any real problems with reviewers are brought to Groundspeak's attention via appeals and other direct contact with geocachers. And I'm sure they can distinguish between real problems and other complaints.

 

I AGREE

 

Let Groundspeak pick based on skills not based on popularity. And let Groundspeak decide the fate of the reviewers, and not leave in the hands of some disgruntled cachers.

+10

We don't need an election. This isn't a democracy, it's a benevolent dictatorship. The ownership decides how best to operate its business.

Link to post

Please note - this isn't a topic to start a debate - just a suggestion. (

 

I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to grounspeak then the community does, that they are choosen in more democratic way - and with term limits.

 

State/regional reviewers serve some amount of time 3 - 4 years (just a suggestion) and nominated and elected by the local community - of course getting the final nod by Groundspeak.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a need for some sort of reviewer survey - a way for the community to let the reviewer and Groundspeak know how the reviewer is doing.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thoughts? I think that you can't ask us not to debate and ask us for our thoughts in the same post. I think that this is code for, 'only post if you agree with me'.

 

Or just a quick way of saying - be polite and cordial. Not use words such as "ludicrous" and "horrible idea" - but that would be asking too much of people on here to actually be polite and respectful now wouldn't it?

Thank you for politely and cordially suggesting that I should be forced to stop volunteering 20 hours per week of my time solely because I've been doing so for ten years.

 

I wonder if there is a way to ignore forum posts? :back:

 

Speaking of which, what about reviewers who are also forum moderators? Most reviewers avoid the forums entirely; for many it's because of threads like this one. Just to be clear, you're advocating for the ouster of the few who post regularly in here in an effort to be helpful.

Link to post

But the fact is all 5 Ontario Reviewers are "out" and don't hide their identities.

 

I must not be paying enough attention. I only know the player names for 2 of the 5.

 

B.

 

Let's see. 3 Southern Cal reviewers. One pulled a "Ringbone" on a cache I was watching so I learned who he is. One, I kind of have a feeling about. The third came on board about 9 months ago and we all had a lot of fun accusing our friend of being the new reviewer. He emphatically denies it and probably isn't, but it would have made sense. I pretty much figured out who one of the Northern Cal reviewers is though forum posts. Another state's reviewer lived in our area for a number of months and was upfront about his status. He even hands out geocoins that have each identity on either side.

 

I would think that the average geocacher doesn't even know their local reviewer's reviewer name, much less their player name. The so called ballot to elect a reviewer would be full of unfamiliar names, and maybe one that is recognized, which is the one that each cacher would vote for. Kind of like the way we elect politicians.

 

I've heard of 3 or 4 "pulled a Ringbone" incidents. For the majority who don't know what that means, it means they mistakenly posted to the forums or a cache page with their player account, when they meant to be logged in with their Reviewer account.

 

I'm also personally aware of not necessarily a Ringbone incident, but a slip up where probably 15-20 of them from all over the U.S. inadvertently identified themselves, or confirmed their suspected identity. I ain't never tellin' that one though. :ph34r:

 

But the fact is all 5 Ontario Reviewers are "out" and don't hide their identities.

 

I must not be paying enough attention. I only know the player names for 2 of the 5.

 

B.

 

Well, I had heard they all came out at the COG Spring Fling Mega event, which I threaten to attend almost every year, but never do. I suppose you could say you have to go out of your way to look for the information, or have been there shoving a pie in their puss, like you said before. OGA webpage I do agree though, most people don't know or care who their reviewer is. Pretty much just a bunch highly active premium members know if the reviewer is out. Or a bunch of highly active premium members speculate endlessly about who they think they are, if anonymous. :)

Link to post

Please note - this isn't a topic to start a debate - just a suggestion. (

 

I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to grounspeak then the community does, that they are choosen in more democratic way - and with term limits.

 

State/regional reviewers serve some amount of time 3 - 4 years (just a suggestion) and nominated and elected by the local community - of course getting the final nod by Groundspeak.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a need for some sort of reviewer survey - a way for the community to let the reviewer and Groundspeak know how the reviewer is doing.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thoughts? I think that you can't ask us not to debate and ask us for our thoughts in the same post. I think that this is code for, 'only post if you agree with me'.

 

Or just a quick way of saying - be polite and cordial. Not use words such as "ludicrous" and "horrible idea" - but that would be asking too much of people on here to actually be polite and respectful now wouldn't it?

Thank you for politely and cordially suggesting that I should be forced to stop volunteering 20 hours per week of my time solely because I've been doing so for ten years.

 

I wonder if there is a way to ignore forum posts? :back:

 

Speaking of which, what about reviewers who are also forum moderators? Most reviewers avoid the forums entirely; for many it's because of threads like this one. Just to be clear, you're advocating for the ouster of the few who post regularly in here in an effort to be helpful.

 

That brings up an excellent point. Assuming nothing bad has happened, and I apologize if there is in either case, one of your co-moderators in Geocaching Topics has not logged into Geocaching.com in almost 2 years. And another for almost 4 months. There is maybe someplace we could use term limits. :)

Link to post

The qualities to be a good reviewer are far too complicated for any cacher to understand.

 

Voting for a reviewer would be nothing more than a popularity contest.

 

Creating a 'term of office' for reviewers would mean discarding a HUGE amount of anecdotal detail accumulated by the 'retired' reviewer, much of which could not possibly be transferred easily to the new reviewer.

 

The current system has warts, but warts are better than gaping holes.

Link to post

The current system has warts...

 

Certainly nothing that couldn't be taken upstairs to gc.com, right?

 

Theoretically, yes.

 

If you find a glaring lack of performance in your reviewer, let Groundspeak know about it.

 

OTOH, there have been glaring performance issues with the local reviewers in my area, but the reviewer was not removed because of them. Presumably they were admonished on the issues, but who knows?

Link to post

The current system has warts...

 

Certainly nothing that couldn't be taken upstairs to gc.com, right?

 

Theoretically, yes.

 

If you find a glaring lack of performance in your reviewer, let Groundspeak know about it.

 

OTOH, there have been glaring performance issues with the local reviewers in my area, but the reviewer was not removed because of them. Presumably they were admonished on the issues, but who knows?

 

Fair enough, but you still need to beat up Groundspeak for the situation.

Link to post

why change it ?

I find it is perfectly fine the way it is now :-)

I newer stumbled over a reviewer I was not happy about,

sure they say nice and polite if there are stuff they dont like or want me to change when I create a cache,

but I consider this a very usefull service, so I can puplish a better cache page with less errors or problems.

 

sure I know they are real people, real active geocachers,

they dont really hide well, at least not in our contry, all people who have been arround a while

know who is who, and it really dont matter at all, since we dont have any contact with then about non business topics,

and at least I dont want to bother them, when not really needed..

 

As I understand it, they are choosen by GS, simply normal active cachers,

when/if they need one, or a replacement, they seek and find one them self, just a perfect way to do it,

plenty of info in the system stats to give GS a good idea about who is good or bad for such job,

much better over a puplic voting.

 

on a side note : I will be happy if GS would pay them a $ or two pr cache they actually checked and helped to release

Edited by OZ2CPU
Link to post

...

 

on a side note : I will be happy if GS would pay them a $ or two pr cache they actually checked and helped to release

 

That one I agree! I know local reviewers have lots of work and lots of trouble to do their work and sure they deserve a small compensation.

Link to post

...

 

on a side note : I will be happy if GS would pay them a $ or two pr cache they actually checked and helped to release

 

That one I agree! I know local reviewers have lots of work and lots of trouble to do their work and sure they deserve a small compensation.

 

For heaven's sake, don't. That would be an incentive to publish everything and anything. They have to concentrate on the guidelines, not in the dollar or two. Have you already calculate how much would yield a Powertrail? Can you imagine the dispute would not be among them to catch the powertrail in his review queue? Do Not ... :lol:

Link to post

...

 

on a side note : I will be happy if GS would pay them a $ or two pr cache they actually checked and helped to release

 

That one I agree! I know local reviewers have lots of work and lots of trouble to do their work and sure they deserve a small compensation.

 

For heaven's sake, don't. That would be an incentive to publish everything and anything. They have to concentrate on the guidelines, not in the dollar or two. Have you already calculate how much would yield a Powertrail? Can you imagine the dispute would not be among them to catch the powertrail in his review queue? Do Not ... :lol:

 

You may be right! Let's keep them Groundspeak's slaves, away of those minor worries... :laughing:

Link to post

Please note - this isn't a topic to start a debate - just a suggestion. (

 

I think since reviewers obviously have a little more "voice" to grounspeak then the community does, that they are choosen in more democratic way - and with term limits.

 

State/regional reviewers serve some amount of time 3 - 4 years (just a suggestion) and nominated and elected by the local community - of course getting the final nod by Groundspeak.

 

Also, someone else mentioned a need for some sort of reviewer survey - a way for the community to let the reviewer and Groundspeak know how the reviewer is doing.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thoughts? I think that you can't ask us not to debate and ask us for our thoughts in the same post. I think that this is code for, 'only post if you agree with me'.

 

Or just a quick way of saying - be polite and cordial. Not use words such as "ludicrous" and "horrible idea" - but that would be asking too much of people on here to actually be polite and respectful now wouldn't it?

Thank you for politely and cordially suggesting that I should be forced to stop volunteering 20 hours per week of my time solely because I've been doing so for ten years.

 

I wonder if there is a way to ignore forum posts? :back:

 

Speaking of which, what about reviewers who are also forum moderators? Most reviewers avoid the forums entirely; for many it's because of threads like this one. Just to be clear, you're advocating for the ouster of the few who post regularly in here in an effort to be helpful.

 

Which brings up a whole other topic- the decline in moderator/reviewer participation on the forums and the question that I've never seen asked- should reviewers even be forum moderators?

 

But voting? No.

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...