Jump to content

Do reviewers ever get fired?


cheryl1701

Recommended Posts

I was reading a local forum yesterday and noticed a dispute between two cachers, although this is not uncommon, what I did think was deplorable about it, was 2 local reviewers chimed in with their opinions and one of them even called one of the parties involved "stupid". I thought reviewers were supposed to be impartial. They did not use their reviewer i.d. to post to this forum, but everyone who posts in this group knows who the reviewers are. Should they not have stayed out of it?

Edited by cheryl1701
Link to comment

Well since they are volunteers can they get fired?? Anyway they used their personal accounts. They are allowed to have their own opinions. If one called the other an idiot, probably not the best thing to do but 90% of us would probably do the same thing at one time or another. I don't think they'll get let go. They aren't perfect, and they're not expected to be. They are humans-if gorundspeak wants perfect they can get robots to do everything.

Link to comment

I was reading a local forum yesterday and noticed a dispute between two cachers, although this is not uncommon, what I did think was deplorable about it, was 2 local reviewers chimed in with their opinions and one of them even called one of the parties involved "stupid". I thought reviewers were supposed to be impartial. They did not use their reviewer i.d. to post to this forum, but everyone who posts in this group knows who the reviewers are. Should they not have stayed out of it?

 

I know of one definite firing, heard rumors of others, including one this year. Also heard of many resignations under protest of one thing or another. But C'mon now, I'd hardly think what you describe is a fireable offense. :)

Link to comment

I was reading a local forum yesterday and noticed a dispute between two cachers, although this is not uncommon, what I did think was deplorable about it, was 2 local reviewers chimed in with their opinions and one of them even called one of the parties involved "stupid". I thought reviewers were supposed to be impartial. They did not use their reviewer i.d. to post to this forum, but everyone who posts in this group knows who the reviewers are. Should they not have stayed out of it?

 

Sometimes people or what they attempt truly is stupid. More context would help if you are asking us to stand in judgement.

Link to comment

I don't know how they roll in Ontario, but down here in North Carolina the reviewers are active cachers too.

If they post using their player account, they are wearing that hat.

If they post using their reviewer account, they are wearing that hat.

I don't have any problems keeping the two separate. Perhaps you should view them that way too?

Link to comment

They are humans-if gorundspeak wants perfect they can get robots to do everything.

 

All your cache are belong to us.

Are you really Yoda or is this some sort of puzzle?

Yoda would have said "Belong to us, all your cache are." :ph34r:

 

Not meaning to get too off topic, but here's the reference:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us

 

More on topic: I've gotten much worse from Geaocaching staff than merely being called stupid. That's nothing. Try getting a nice long flaming rant in your inbox from a forum moderator, and then we'll talk. B)

Link to comment

'Stupid is as stupid does.' --Forrest Gump

 

Did the 'reviewer' call someone stupid, or say what they did was stupid?

 

I'll bet any reviewer sees a lot of stupid on a regular basis...they should know it when they see it.

 

Even Keystone takes his lab coat off once in a while. ;)

And when he does, he's just a 'regular cacher' like the rest of us and is allowed to express his opinions candidly.

Link to comment

They are humans-if gorundspeak wants perfect they can get robots to do everything.

 

All your cache are belong to us.

Are you really Yoda or is this some sort of puzzle?

Yoda would have said "Belong to us, all your cache are." :ph34r:

 

Not meaning to get too off topic, but here's the reference:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us

 

More on topic: I've gotten much worse from Geaocaching staff than merely being called stupid. That's nothing. Try getting a nice long flaming rant in your inbox from a forum moderator, and then we'll talk. B)

 

Yeah, I got that reference right away, but good to post the link.

 

Long flaming rant? Even I, a four time banee (I think, I lost count) have never seen anything like that!

 

Speaking of volunteers getting fired, can we get Moderators who haven't logged into Geocaching.com in 2 years or 5 months respectively fired? :ph34r: I don't think a Volunteer reviewer would still be around if they haven't logged into the website since 2011.

Link to comment

I was reading a local forum yesterday and noticed a dispute between two cachers, although this is not uncommon, what I did think was deplorable about it, was 2 local reviewers chimed in with their opinions and one of them even called one of the parties involved "stupid". I thought reviewers were supposed to be impartial. They did not use their reviewer i.d. to post to this forum, but everyone who posts in this group knows who the reviewers are. Should they not have stayed out of it?

I know there are cases where Reviewers were asked to "quit", or they resigned their voluntary volunteer position to voluntarily review cache listings.

 

That said, one can always contact geocaching.com staff if there is an issue of which you would like them to be aware.

 

In addition, I was always under the impression that Reviewers were folks that Groundspeak/Geocaching.com viewed as knowledgeable about local laws, regulations and land management jurisdiction, Geocaching.com guidelines, and have shown the ability to participate in or host local or regional events or organizations. If someone who is a Reviewer demonstrates that they can't be diplomatic or "play nice" on the local organizational level, I don't see why this would be a position of perceived community leadership Geocaching.com would want to see this person holding.

 

We all get fired up from time to time, but blatantly calling someone "stupid", or even overtly calling behavior "stupid" in a local forum--where people know they are a volunteer Reviewer, is not behavior I think sets a good standard for what this position of authority should have. There are better ways to describe someone or someone's behavior. If a Reviewer can't be level-headed and mindful of perceptions, are they really what we as a global community would like to see in position?

 

But, that said, "fire" them? I don't know if that is what anyone should call for. I would hope that this possible lapse of judgement is addressed by the party in question, however. "I'm sorry" goes a long way.

Link to comment

I was reading a local forum yesterday and noticed a dispute between two cachers, although this is not uncommon, what I did think was deplorable about it, was 2 local reviewers chimed in with their opinions and one of them even called one of the parties involved "stupid". I thought reviewers were supposed to be impartial. They did not use their reviewer i.d. to post to this forum, but everyone who posts in this group knows who the reviewers are. Should they not have stayed out of it?

I know there are cases where Reviewers were asked to "quit", or they resigned their voluntary volunteer position to voluntarily review cache listings.

 

That said, one can always contact geocaching.com staff if there is an issue of which you would like them to be aware.

 

In addition, I was always under the impression that Reviewers were folks that Groundspeak/Geocaching.com viewed as knowledgeable about local laws, regulations and land management jurisdiction, Geocaching.com guidelines, and have shown the ability to participate in or host local or regional events or organizations. If someone who is a Reviewer demonstrates that they can't be diplomatic or "play nice" on the local organizational level, I don't see why this would be a position of perceived community leadership Geocaching.com would want to see this person holding.

 

We all get fired up from time to time, but blatantly calling someone "stupid", or even overtly calling behavior "stupid" in a local forum--where people know they are a volunteer Reviewer, is not behavior I think sets a good standard for what this position of authority should have. There are better ways to describe someone or someone's behavior. If a Reviewer can't be level-headed and mindful of perceptions, are they really what we as a global community would like to see in position?

 

But, that said, "fire" them? I don't know if that is what anyone should call for. I would hope that this possible lapse of judgement is addressed by the party in question, however. "I'm sorry" goes a long way.

 

I disagree with you. If a geocacher's behavior is stupid or arrogant and has persisted in the face of reasoned responses then I do not have an issue with a person, using their personal account, describing such behavior in blunt terms. It does not matter to me if that person reviews caches for publication under another account. And if that person supports the appropriate actions of the affected party (such as contacting appeals at GS HQ) all the better!

Link to comment

Long flaming rant? Even I, a four time banee (I think, I lost count) have never seen anything like that!

 

Mildly irritating people get themselves banned for breaking the forum guidelines, but it takes a particularly irritating individual to get a moderator to do something that could potentially get himself banned (I can fall into the latter category at times). Generally speaking, I find the GC staff to be an unusually good-natured lot, but I have yet to find a person on this earth that could not be provoked, somehow. The better they are at holding back, the bigger the explosion when they go. It's always unacceptable behavior, no matter how justified it seems to the person, whether that person is in a position of authority or not, but we're all human, and that's just something that happens. Unless it's a death threat or incessant harassment, then I can't see myself getting too worked up over it.

Link to comment

Without the context of the thread it is hard to say who was right, but in reality if two people are arguing over something silly and two community members call them out on it, then fair enough. If you are doing something stupid then expect to be called stupid or have your actions labeled stupid. If they happen to be reviewers then so what, they have a right to express an opinion just like the rest of the community. As long as the opinion is expressed within the guidelines of the forum then I cannot see a problem.

Link to comment

Was the "local forum" on this website, or another? You didn't say where.

 

Silly. Who posts to those regional forums on this website? The only posts there are the ones the Mods move from here. :lol:

 

At a local forum, from the City indicated as the location of the poster of post#7, there are a couple drama threads. One about a militant "soft coordinate" cache owner who has been deleting the find logs of people who post correct coordinates with their log. I see a reviewer posting under their player name there, but not calling anyone stupid.

Link to comment

Was the "local forum" on this website, or another? You didn't say where.

 

Silly. Who posts to those regional forums on this website? The only posts there are the ones the Mods move from here. :lol:

 

At a local forum, from the City indicated as the location of the poster of post#7, there are a couple drama threads. One about a militant "soft coordinate" cache owner who has been deleting the find logs of people who post correct coordinates with their log. I see a reviewer posting under their player name there, but not calling anyone stupid.

I looked the comment is still there.

Link to comment

For the interest of clarity, here is the sentence (posted on a local forum) I believe cheryl1701 found objectionable :

 

Fact: a certain portion of the general population are idiots. Why should the subset of geocachers be any different? Besides which, with a find rate of less than one per year, he hardly qualifies to be called a geocacher.

 

So, yes, geocacher A pretty much said that geocacher B is an idiot, after said geocacher B deleted some logs, refused to correct coordinates and sent geocacher C an e-mail stating that the imprecision in the coordinate was delibarate, to make the cache more interesting :rolleyes: .

 

Now, the question I'd like cheryl1701 to answer is : What reviewer do you think geocacher A (who posted the comment) is? I'd really like to know, and there is no problem in sharing that information, as all the local reviewers are "out of the closet" about their identities.

Link to comment

For the interest of clarity, here is the sentence (posted on a local forum) I believe cheryl1701 found objectionable :

 

Fact: a certain portion of the general population are idiots. Why should the subset of geocachers be any different? Besides which, with a find rate of less than one per year, he hardly qualifies to be called a geocacher.

 

So, yes, geocacher A pretty much said that geocacher B is an idiot, after said geocacher B deleted some logs, refused to correct coordinates and sent geocacher C an e-mail stating that the imprecision in the coordinate was delibarate, to make the cache more interesting :rolleyes: .

 

Now, the question I'd like cheryl1701 to answer is : What reviewer do you think geocacher A (who posted the comment) is? I'd really like to know, and there is no problem in sharing that information, as all the local reviewers are "out of the closet" about their identities.

that is not the quote, there are 2 reviewers in that thread, check both, and BTW the whole thread is nothing but bullying and bashing because the second party ( the one they are referring to is not on that board to defend himself )

Link to comment

For the interest of clarity, here is the sentence (posted on a local forum) I believe cheryl1701 found objectionable :

 

Fact: a certain portion of the general population are idiots. Why should the subset of geocachers be any different? Besides which, with a find rate of less than one per year, he hardly qualifies to be called a geocacher.

 

So, yes, geocacher A pretty much said that geocacher B is an idiot, after said geocacher B deleted some logs, refused to correct coordinates and sent geocacher C an e-mail stating that the imprecision in the coordinate was delibarate, to make the cache more interesting :rolleyes: .

 

Now, the question I'd like cheryl1701 to answer is : What reviewer do you think geocacher A (who posted the comment) is? I'd really like to know, and there is no problem in sharing that information, as all the local reviewers are "out of the closet" about their identities.

that is not the quote, there are 2 reviewers in that thread, check both, and BTW the whole thread is nothing but bullying and bashing because the second party ( the one they are referring to is not on that board to defend himself )

 

Well, I know all 5 Ontario reviewers are out of the closet, but I only recognize the one player name. By the way, if my reviewer (not from Ontario, but nearby) ever gets wind of "soft coordinates" to make the cache "more interesting", he disables the cache, with a note indicating that accurate coordinates need to be posted before the cache can be re-enabled.

Link to comment

For the interest of clarity, here is the sentence (posted on a local forum) I believe cheryl1701 found objectionable :

 

Fact: a certain portion of the general population are idiots. Why should the subset of geocachers be any different? Besides which, with a find rate of less than one per year, he hardly qualifies to be called a geocacher.

 

So, yes, geocacher A pretty much said that geocacher B is an idiot, after said geocacher B deleted some logs, refused to correct coordinates and sent geocacher C an e-mail stating that the imprecision in the coordinate was delibarate, to make the cache more interesting :rolleyes: .

 

Now, the question I'd like cheryl1701 to answer is : What reviewer do you think geocacher A (who posted the comment) is? I'd really like to know, and there is no problem in sharing that information, as all the local reviewers are "out of the closet" about their identities.

that is not the quote, there are 2 reviewers in that thread, check both, and BTW the whole thread is nothing but bullying and bashing because the second party ( the one they are referring to is not on that board to defend himself )

 

Well, I know all 5 Ontario reviewers are out of the closet, but I only recognize the one player name. By the way, if my reviewer (not from Ontario, but nearby) ever gets wind of "soft coordinates" to make the cache "more interesting", he disables the cache, with a note indicating that accurate coordinates need to be posted before the cache can be re-enabled.

it really was more of a "what if" type question. the cache itself is not in question here

Link to comment

For the interest of clarity, here is the sentence (posted on a local forum) I believe cheryl1701 found objectionable :

 

Fact: a certain portion of the general population are idiots. Why should the subset of geocachers be any different? Besides which, with a find rate of less than one per year, he hardly qualifies to be called a geocacher.

 

So, yes, geocacher A pretty much said that geocacher B is an idiot, after said geocacher B deleted some logs, refused to correct coordinates and sent geocacher C an e-mail stating that the imprecision in the coordinate was delibarate, to make the cache more interesting :rolleyes: .

 

Now, the question I'd like cheryl1701 to answer is : What reviewer do you think geocacher A (who posted the comment) is? I'd really like to know, and there is no problem in sharing that information, as all the local reviewers are "out of the closet" about their identities.

that is not the quote, there are 2 reviewers in that thread, check both, and BTW the whole thread is nothing but bullying and bashing because the second party ( the one they are referring to is not on that board to defend himself )

 

I'm sorry, but I only see one reviewer posting in that thread, and, despite posting under her player account, she was extremely diplomatic and correct, and never used the word stupid. She explained the guidelines and how they apply to the situation.

 

As I said, I'd really like to know who you think is the second reviewer there.

 

Also, I don't see how that thread is "nothing but bullying and bashing"... if there is some bullying, it is in the e-mails from the "log-deleter" that are being quoted.

Edited by The red-haired witch
Link to comment

For the interest of clarity, here is the sentence (posted on a local forum) I believe cheryl1701 found objectionable :

 

Fact: a certain portion of the general population are idiots. Why should the subset of geocachers be any different? Besides which, with a find rate of less than one per year, he hardly qualifies to be called a geocacher.

 

So, yes, geocacher A pretty much said that geocacher B is an idiot, after said geocacher B deleted some logs, refused to correct coordinates and sent geocacher C an e-mail stating that the imprecision in the coordinate was delibarate, to make the cache more interesting :rolleyes: .

 

Now, the question I'd like cheryl1701 to answer is : What reviewer do you think geocacher A (who posted the comment) is? I'd really like to know, and there is no problem in sharing that information, as all the local reviewers are "out of the closet" about their identities.

that is not the quote, there are 2 reviewers in that thread, check both, and BTW the whole thread is nothing but bullying and bashing because the second party ( the one they are referring to is not on that board to defend himself )

 

Well, I know all 5 Ontario reviewers are out of the closet, but I only recognize the one player name. By the way, if my reviewer (not from Ontario, but nearby) ever gets wind of "soft coordinates" to make the cache "more interesting", he disables the cache, with a note indicating that accurate coordinates need to be posted before the cache can be re-enabled.

it really was more of a "what if" type question. the cache itself is not in question here

 

OK, no problem there. But just to let you know the majority of the Geocaching populace, considers the allegedly bullied Geocacher to be wrong. :)

 

OK, I found the Idiot comment. Unless that person has been appointed a 6th Ontario Reviewer since the 2012 COG Spring Fling, where the 5 Ontario reviewers lined up to have people shove pies in their face (must have been a great time), they are not a reviewer. But like I say, they could have been appointed since then.

Link to comment

Planet is correct; and you are all missing the point... here is the question again... (if they are known reviewers) should they not have stayed out of it? yes or no will suffice

 

Actually, yes. No, if they were posting with their reveiwer username. I was never a fan of the whole player/reviewer account and posting to forums thing. One could (and many have) even argued that falls under the definition of an internet Sock Puppet. :ph34r:

 

That was more than "yes". Not too much more though. :lol:

Link to comment

Planet is correct; and you are all missing the point... here is the question again... (if they are known reviewers) should they not have stayed out of it? yes or no will suffice

 

First, you can't ask a question on a discussion forum and demand a simple yes or no answer. This is a place to discuss. :blink:

 

Second, if you refer to a specific situation when asking a question, expect people to try to respond in reference to that specific situation. And to want more details to give an informed opinion

 

The question you asked in the title of the thread is "Do reviewers ever get fired?"

 

I haven't seen it happen, but I'm sure it could happen, if a reviewer did something very bad. Do I think commenting on a local forum under their player account is "something very bad"? No. Something very bad would be archiving the caches of everyone you don't like, or taking bribes to publish caches that don't follow the guidelines. You know, bad. :ph34r:

 

Becoming a reviewer doesn't mean you can't have opinions anymore. You should be polite in expressing them, sure, but so should all geocachers, if you check the rules of most forums...

Link to comment

Planet is correct; and you are all missing the point... here is the question again... (if they are known reviewers) should they not have stayed out of it? yes or no will suffice

 

First, you can't ask a question on a discussion forum and demand a simple yes or no answer. This is a place to discuss. :blink:

 

Second, if you refer to a specific situation when asking a question, expect people to try to respond in reference to that specific situation. And to want more details to give an informed opinion

 

The question you asked in the title of the thread is "Do reviewers ever get fired?"

 

I haven't seen it happen, but I'm sure it could happen, if a reviewer did something very bad. Do I think commenting on a local forum under their player account is "something very bad"? No. Something very bad would be archiving the caches of everyone you don't like, or taking bribes to publish caches that don't follow the guidelines. You know, bad. :ph34r:

 

Becoming a reviewer doesn't mean you can't have opinions anymore. You should be polite in expressing them, sure, but so should all geocachers, if you check the rules of most forums...

The answer to "Do Reviewers ever get fired" is no. Reading through as many forum topics as I could find on the subject, there have been times where status has been revoked or behavior has been corrected by Groundspeak. I've never personally seen or heard of a Reviewer getting "fired" from their volunteer position.

 

That said, the key to the whole situation, in my opinion, is if the Reviewer(s) in question are able to demonstrate that they can have cooler heads and recognize if their behavior is being perceived as "bullying". Being able to understand when your behavior might have caused an unnecessary stir is important. Being able to say, "Oops, I got a little overheated there...I'm sorry" is pretty important.

 

That's just my opinion. Some here in the forums will say that everyone should be able to speak their mind, and calling someone names isn't a big deal. But even the hottest heads among us must recognize the importance of taking a break, stepping back, and trying not to let their behavior come across as constantly inflammatory or boorish. Others...well, some don't mind being "that guy" in forums.

Link to comment

I can only take what she says with a grain of salt, she is also a reviewer, and knows the parties in question personally.

 

I am and I do.

 

Knowing that, I'm puzzled that

1) You don't seem to believe me when I say that there is no mysterous "second reviewer" in that thread.

2) You think it makes my response less valid... I think having first hand knowledge means I may have a slightly better idea of what reviewers are allowed to do or not.

 

As some recent answers indicate that some people got a mistaken impression of the situation, let me make crystal clear that the question :

 

"A first geocacher wrote on a local forum that another geocacher was an idiot.. if the first geocacher is a reviewer, is that an appropriate thing to write?"

 

Is purely hypothetical, as this situation didn't actually happen. Telling someone "hey, if you were a reviewer, you shouldn't have written that" seems rather pointless to me. If your point is that no one should ever call anyone else an idiot on a public forum, I agree that would be nice, but having been active on many forums for many years, I can tell you it's unlikely to become the norm. :rolleyes:

 

(edit : bad English)

Edited by The red-haired witch
Link to comment

I can only take what she says with a grain of salt, she is also a reviewer, and knows the parties in question personally.

 

I am and I do.

 

Knowing that, I'm puzzled that

1) You don't seem to believe me when I say that there is no mysterous "second reviewer" in that thread.

2) You think it makes my response less valid... I think having first hand knowledge means I may have a slightly better idea of what reviewers are allowed to do or not.

 

As some recent answers indicate that some people got a mistaken impression of the situation, let me make crystal clear that the question :

 

"A first geocacher wrote on a local forum that another geocacher was an idiot.. if the first geocacher is a reviewer, is that an appropriate thing to write?"

 

Is purely hypothetical, as this situation didn't actually happen. Telling someone "hey, if you were a reviewer, you shouldn't have written that" seems rather pointless to me. If your point is that no one should ever call anyone else an idiot on a public forum, I agree that would be nice, but having been active on many forums for many years, I can tell you it's unlikely to become the norm. :rolleyes:

 

(edit : bad English)

I was asking for an opinion, your opinion, although I value it, is less credible because you are too close to the situation to be objective.

Link to comment
I was reading a local forum yesterday and noticed a dispute between two cachers, although this is not uncommon, what I did think was deplorable about it, was 2 local reviewers chimed in with their opinions and one of them even called one of the parties involved "stupid". I thought reviewers were supposed to be impartial.
Well, was the party in question being stupid? If so, then I don't see any violation of the volunteer reviewer's supposed impartiality.

 

They did not use their reviewer i.d. to post to this forum, but everyone who posts in this group knows who the reviewers are. Should they not have stayed out of it?
When did volunteer reviewers lose their ability to participate in the local geocaching community?

 

And FWIW, if the discussion was indeed about a misguided CO intentionally using "soft coordinates", then I think the volunteer reviewers (and any other geocachers) were right to criticize the misguided CO's behavior.

 

I am not a volunteer reviewer. I do not play one on TV. I have no dog in this hunt.

Link to comment

I was asking for an opinion, your opinion, although I value it, is less credible because you are too close to the situation to be objective.

 

Ah, I understand now, thanks for clarifying.

 

Clearly I should not have brought knowledge and facts into a discussion that was supposed to be purely about people expressing their opinions. Sorry, I'm told it's a common flaw amongst engineers and scientists. Like those silly climatologists trying to enter discussions about global warming, when their opinion is obviously biased by the facts and science they know.

 

Please carry on with your expressing of opinions on what reviewers are or are not allowed to do, I wont interfere any more.

Link to comment

Reviewers are not god like deities, they are volunteers. If they are posting under their reviewer account they should probably avoid being abrasive, but just because someone knows their reviewer name, does not mean that they always must act like supreme beings. There is a big difference between the Lackeys who work for the site, and the volunteers, and I think that the difference is being confused here. Unpaid volunteers that are helping out are not so much the hierchical entities placed up high on a geo-platform that people are expecting. They voluntarily check Geocaches for issues, if they think something is stupid under their normal account, so what? This is just another reason why they ought to keep their reviewer status secret. I'm glad I'm not a reviewer, as I think this thread is stupid. :D

Link to comment

Possible next topic:

 

"Do reviewers ever hold a grudge when you call them out in the forums? My new cache submissions keep getting rejected for technicalities."

 

Like the rest of this thread, this is hypothetical, as cheryl1701 hasn't called out a reviewer in this thread.

 

She thinks she knows that someone who posted something that she finds inappropriate is a reviewer, but she's wrong.

 

Oddly, not only wrong, but in face of having a person whom she knows to be a reviewer tell her that the poster is not a reviewer, she tells the reviewer that she's not credible.

Which I find incredible ;-)

 

Talk about much ado about nothing.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...