Jump to content

This is a first for me...


Recommended Posts

I will preface this post by stating this is not an attack on the reviewer team. I do not want this thread to devolve into a negative attack on anybody.

 

I recently sumbitted a challenge geocache. A very accommodating reviewer asked me to edit some of the qualifications and to find five local geocachers qualifying for a tougher segment of the challenge. I edited the qualifications, as requested, and found five local geocachers meeting the questioned requirement. I posted this data in a Reviewer Note and was surprised to receive the following reply from a second reviewer:

 

I think if you're going to submit silly things like this that you, as the cache owner, should be required to disprove that someone qualifies rather than making the cachers spend a bunch of useless time going over their own finds to come up with these ridiculous combinations. What, exactly, is the point of this?

 

I was not expecting those comments. The reviewer invoked the guideline (albeit, calling it a rule) regarding challenge geocaches, which I respect. I was, however, a bit put back by the comments about "silly things," "useless time," and "ridiculous." My submitted geocache is a poker-themed geocache and requires geocachers to find various geocaches as outlined in the ten standard hands of a poker game. I do not believe my challenge is unreasonable, but actually something in which geocachers would enjoy completing. Apparently, this reviewer disagreed.

 

I do not know any members of the volunteer team on a personal basis, but the few I have briefly met and spoken with are very pleasant, polite and helpful folks.

 

If the challenge geocache is not published, I will accept it. In my opinion, which is not worth much, I find the reply a bit condescending. I'll live, but I was not expecting it, especially since I did what the initial reviewer asked of me.

Edited by TerraViators
Link to comment

I must confess that I'm not a fan of challenges which required sitting in front of a PC for hours on end locating and listing qualifying evidence, with criteria so convoluted I end up having to email the CO for clarification, just to understand them.

 

The other week I spent over two hours making a bookmark list for a single challenge cache that I already know will have absolutely nothing remarkable about it but I could walk to in 15 minutes, but FTF's gone - so I'll save it for the August souvenir thing.

 

After doing a few and ending up with a distinctly average and sometimes below par cache at the end, I tend to ignore them as I find the reward does not match the required effort.

Link to comment

I must confess that I'm not a fan of challenges which required sitting in front of a PC for hours on end locating and listing qualifying evidence, with criteria so convoluted I end up having to email the CO for clarification, just to understand them.

 

The other week I spent over two hours making a bookmark list for a single challenge cache that I already know will have absolutely nothing remarkable about it but I could walk to in 15 minutes, but FTF's gone - so I'll save it for the August souvenir thing.

 

After doing a few and ending up with a distinctly average and sometimes below par cache at the end, I tend to ignore them as I find the reward does not match the required effort.

 

I'm minded to agree. If it's something easy where my stats will show what I've done, or "find 8 cache types in one day" where I'll have a good idea whether I achieved it and what day it was, then it works well. If it's convoluted it's more hassle than it's worth to prove I qualify.

 

The one exception I've made so far was for a local cache that was a D5/T1 (a combination I didn't have). It needed a GSAK macro to quickly prove I qualified and I don't use GSAK, so I had a premium member friend run my "My Finds" query through it to produce the stats to prove I qualified. Had this particular challenge not had a D/T combination I wanted I'd have ignored it.

Link to comment

Agreed, the reviewer comment mentioned seemed unhelpful. Although we don't see any backstory.

 

==================================================================

 

Speaking of backstory, I took a look at the OP's extensive list of owned Challenges. I think several fit in the category described in post #4.

Link to comment

Speaking of backstory, I took a look at the OP's extensive list of owned Challenges. I think several fit in the category described in post #4.

 

I would tend to agree.

 

And to be completely candid - I'm with the reviewer.

 

I've never used my ignore list - I've never struggled to ignore any cache that didn't appeal to me - but if I did use the ignore list - these would be on it.

 

Still - people seem to find them and even FP them - each to their own I suppose.

Link to comment

Agreed, the reviewer comment mentioned seemed unhelpful. Although we don't see any backstory.

 

==================================================================

 

Speaking of backstory, I took a look at the OP's extensive list of owned Challenges. I think several fit in the category described in post #4.

 

I agree. Some of them border on the absurd. It wouldn't be hard for me to imagine his reviewer getting tired of spending time on them when he could be publishing real caches.

Link to comment

I especially liked:

 

A series of challenge caches placed under lamp post skirts to avoid using them for mundane traditionals.

 

Because those LPC caches are way less mundane than a trad at the same location - having also jumped through 50 hoops and hours of admin - just to qualify for logging them? :blink:

Link to comment

...I tend to ignore them as I find the reward does not match the required effort.

 

Had this particular challenge not had a D/T combination I wanted I'd have ignored it.

 

Still - people seem to find them and even FP them - each to their own I suppose.

 

I got confused just reading some of those of yours :blink: , we would put stuff like that on our ignore list.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

 

In the geocaching community, like any community, different people have different tastes. Simply ignoring activities you don't enjoy seems like a much more positive attitude than saying, "I don't like this activity, so I think it should be eliminated." Kudos to all these tolerant folks.

Link to comment

I looked at all of the challenges listed by the OP and they all seem pretty straight forward to me. As for the comments from the reviewer: I think they were rude and out of line, unless there's more to the story than has been presented. Maybe there aren't enough 'lame LPCs' in your part of the world so the reviewer is trying to promote their placement... <_<

Link to comment

I especially liked:

 

A series of challenge caches placed under lamp post skirts to avoid using them for mundane traditionals.

 

Because those LPC caches are way less mundane than a trad at the same location - having also jumped through 50 hoops and hours of admin - just to qualify for logging them? :blink:

 

Good example of how different people view different aspects of this game we play.

 

In my humble opinion, the only thing a LPC is really good for is a diversion while out shopping, or waiting for the wife to get her nails done. I like them for that.

 

If the final to a puzzle, or challenge is a LPC, it makes the LPC even more mundane.

 

While it does seem the Reviewer maybe shouldn't have use the word silly, I would have to agree, if your new challenge is another one of these, silly is the word I would use.

 

Personally, I got a little bit of a laugh from someone who, apparently doesn't care for LPCs, hiding a bunch of them to prevent people from hiding them. :blink:

Link to comment

Well, I'll side with both of them. I agree with the message the reviewer was trying to convey, however if the hides fall within the guidelines then the reviewer really has no reason not to publish the listing. They certainly shouldn't word the message that way.

 

I think this thread should be less about how you think about the OP's challenges, and more about the words in the reviewers response.

 

Just a couple more things. We all have bad days and say/type/send things that we later realize we shouldn't have. I'd be willing that either that's the case or...... There's more to this story than we're getting. Prior communication with the reviewer from the OP that warrants a snarky response maybe? Either of those things explains the message. I'm not leaning one way or the other, those are just the only two things I can think of that make sense.

Link to comment

 

I think this thread should be less about how you think about the OP's challenges, and more about the words in the reviewers response.

 

 

I disagree - unless you think the reviewer should be chastised for having a view?

 

Swap the word silly for the word complicated in the reviewer's comments and I'd say it's perfectly reasonable - although I can fully appreciate the use of the word silly.

 

And yes - there probably is more to the story - there was even a vague suggestion of same earlier in the thread.

Link to comment

I must confess that I'm not a fan of challenges which required sitting in front of a PC for hours on end locating and listing qualifying evidence, with criteria so convoluted I end up having to email the CO for clarification, just to understand them.

I haven't found any challenge caches, as best I can recall, so I'm probably not the best person available to offer an opinion, but this statement is right on par with my views on them. To my way of thinking, any challenge that requires more than a brief paragraph to explain was created simply so the owner could see how far they could push the envelope between complex and absurd.

Link to comment

I like challenge caches but sometimes I admit, I get challenged out. So many are very confusing and either very arbitrary or trivial to the point of huh?

 

I do not know the details of this challenge, but some of the CO's challenges are either very accepted (366 placed dates) or kinda interesting (find a cache in 15 different capitals) but some are probably in the "huh?" category like "Find 50 geocaches containing the word part "eas" in the title, description or hint". Really, searching the description or hint? That is a first for me.

 

Anyway, this topic is about his reply, but I would imagine a reviewer is probably trying to figure out what a challenge is all about and probably has some challenge-itis and expressed a bit of that into this. I would agree that the words useless or ridiculous should not have been used, but they are probably trying to see the value or merit of the challenge and not seeing it.

 

I struggle really hard to find good challenge caches to write and have learned to ignore challenges I do not care for. I like the ones that are original or make you find old caches or take you to very easily defined places like counties, islands, parks, county grids, etc etc.

 

Maybe you should run this challenge by 3 friends who you do not normally ask opinions to and if all 3 enjoy it, push to get the challenge created...if they go, what in the world? Maybe give it a miss.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

 

I think this thread should be less about how you think about the OP's challenges, and more about the words in the reviewers response.

 

 

I disagree - unless you think the reviewer should be chastised for having a view?

 

Swap the word silly for the word complicated in the reviewer's comments and I'd say it's perfectly reasonable - although I can fully appreciate the use of the word silly.

 

And yes - there probably is more to the story - there was even a vague suggestion of same earlier in the thread.

 

I think the reviewer should be chastised for expressing his view as a reviewer in communication with the CO. Once the reviewers start publishing or not based on what their opinion of silly is, things are going to get ugly fast. Again, that's if there were no other communication between the two. If there was an email or note back to the reviewer that prompted such a remark, then I'm all for it.

 

Either that, or allow them to comment like that on every cache listing they read. "It's silly to put a pill bottle under a lamp skirt across the parking lot from another pill bottle under a lamp skirt, what are you thinking?"

 

So again, the OP's other caches have no bearing, or shouldn't, on the response he got from the reviewer on a newly submitted cache.

 

I too appreciate the use of the word silly, but unless there's more to the story here, it shouldn't have been used. That's the topic, that's my opinion.

Link to comment

There is no back story. I've never spoken with this reviewer before and s/he has only published one other geocache of mine, a challenge cache. No bad blood, snarky barbs at each other or pestering. I do not have any negative feelings about the person, either. In fact, this particular reviewer even apologized to me, this morning, for the reply. Thank you, all, for the honest opinions. I enjoyed reading each of them. I will consider the comments when hiding future challenge geocaches.

Link to comment

Would be interesting to know WHY the SECOND reviewer got involved and WHAT became of the FIRST reviewer who was handling the cache. Are they still handling the review and publication? I think it is obvious that this became part of an inter reviewer discussion for some reason. Was the first a new person who was under supervision?

This is beyond just someone expressing an (apologized for it seems) opinion. The second seemed to be taking control of the review without explanation. I suspect their supervisor stepped in to express their opinion, but we won't likely (nor should) know that part. The process must be neutral in application and only deal with the guidelines as published (allowing for a bit of discretion, I guess).

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

 

I think if you're going to submit silly things like this that you, as the cache owner, should be required to disprove that someone qualifies rather than making the cachers spend a bunch of useless time going over their own finds to come up with these ridiculous combinations. What, exactly, is the point of this?

 

I was not expecting those comments. The reviewer invoked the guideline (albeit, calling it a rule) regarding challenge geocaches, which I respect. I was, however, a bit put back by the comments about "silly things," "useless time," and "ridiculous." My submitted geocache is a poker-themed geocache and requires geocachers to find various geocaches as outlined in the ten standard hands of a poker game. I do not believe my challenge is unreasonable, but actually something in which geocachers would enjoy completing. Apparently, this reviewer disagreed.

 

This is interesting. I've always said there has been no major backlash against challenge caches from players, but rather from reviewers. And I've always believed the "changes" that occurred in the challenge cache guidelines were due to input from the reviewers, rather than players. The next regular player I hear who say's "Gee Golly, I'd have to alter the way I cache to qualify for this challenge" will be the first. :ph34r:

 

Then again, who knows what kind of ridiculous nonsense gets submitted as a challenges, and never see's the light of day.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

Maybe the reviewer is just over worked and adding another reviewer would help, I'll volunteer, Roman the reviewer. :lol:

 

:lol: indeed. (I've heard they don't allow Reviewers to consume alcohol while on duty. you still interested?)

 

No, but my wife is filling out the application for me.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I suggest you not worry about how it was said and who said it and just focus on whether the advice is useful. I don't know what the challenge is, of course, so you'll have to answer the question for yourself: Do these requirements really make sense? I've seen a few challenges that I ask myself that about, so I'm fine with the reviewer asking the question.

 

What you quoted doesn't seem to imply that the cache will be turned down, but I think the fact that the reviewer thought this was dubious should be enough for you to sit down and think about exactly how someone would confirm meeting this requirement, then write it up in a reviewer note in order to explain how the requirements make sense.

 

As an aside, I think the reviewer's comments are only an issue because you've made them public. As a private "are you sure?", I think it's reasonable. But I would have no idea whether it should officially be considered out of line, however.

Link to comment

I think the reviewer should be chastised for expressing his view as a reviewer in communication with the CO. Once the reviewers start publishing or not based on what their opinion of silly is, things are going to get ugly fast. Again, that's if there were no other communication between the two. If there was an email or note back to the reviewer that prompted such a remark, then I'm all for it.

 

I'm just not sure how well the idea of chastising the volunteer reviewer for being human would work.

 

To me it sounds like all stick - and no carrot which, even if we account only for the lack of vegetables in that diet - sounds decidedly unhealthy.

 

Maybe you're right though - maybe we should stamp out any sign of human response as soon as we see it and have them held to account for speaking out - before it gets ugly. I'm pretty sure that won't cause the volunteer reviewers to become demotivated and find something better / more enjoyable to do with their time.

 

I dare say GS could actually replace the reviewers completely - with a software program that, so long as the cache met the guidelines, would publish every cache quietly and efficiently without a single shred of emotion.

 

Of course no software program could make sense of the numerous discrepancies and contradictions within the several parallel versions of the guidelines currently in service - so those would have to be re-written first. :ph34r:

Link to comment

The next regular player I hear who say's "Gee Golly, I'd have to alter the way I cache to qualify for this challenge" will be the first. :ph34r:

 

I don't alter the way I cache. I mostly just ignore them. But, some day I might see one that interests me.

 

I ignore many, believe me. There's some silly stuff out there, and it goes right on the ignore list. I most dislike the "crazy, make something up yourself" ones. Could the one in the OP fall under that category? :ph34r: By the way, here's the "alter the way I cache" text:

 

One should not have to 'give up' finding other caches to achieve a challenge cache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of caches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game.

 

Yeah, so what? They seriously want us to believe anyone complained about that? Anyone who isn't a volunteer reviewer, I mean. :lol:

Link to comment

I think the reviewer should be chastised for expressing his view as a reviewer in communication with the CO. Once the reviewers start publishing or not based on what their opinion of silly is, things are going to get ugly fast. Again, that's if there were no other communication between the two. If there was an email or note back to the reviewer that prompted such a remark, then I'm all for it.

 

I'm just not sure how well the idea of chastising the volunteer reviewer for being human would work.

 

To me it sounds like all stick - and no carrot which, even if we account only for the lack of vegetables in that diet - sounds decidedly unhealthy.

 

Maybe you're right though - maybe we should stamp out any sign of human response as soon as we see it and have them held to account for speaking out - before it gets ugly. I'm pretty sure that won't cause the volunteer reviewers to become demotivated and find something better / more enjoyable to do with their time.

 

I dare say GS could actually replace the reviewers completely - with a software program that, so long as the cache met the guidelines, would publish every cache quietly and efficiently without a single shred of emotion.

 

Of course no software program could make sense of the numerous discrepancies and contradictions within the several parallel versions of the guidelines currently in service - so those would have to be re-written first. :ph34r:

 

I'd actually rather see them treat more caches in general this way. It will create problems though. I feel like the reviewers publish garbage caches every day (not at all a knock at the reviewers, they're doing what they're paid to do :ph34r: ) many time without any suggestion at how silly/pointless/tedious/crappy the cache may be. I'd be interested to see if this reviewer has had similar communication with anyone else. As much as I dislike acknowledging it, the reviewers opinions are not in the cache placement guidelines. I know it mentions something about their years of experience and that playing some sort of factor, but if they're going to apply that little tidbit, it should be used far more often than it is.

Link to comment

Agreed, the reviewer comment mentioned seemed unhelpful. Although we don't see any backstory.

 

==================================================================

 

Speaking of backstory, I took a look at the OP's extensive list of owned Challenges. I think several fit in the category described in post #4.

 

I see both sides.. I think the reviewer note was uncalled for but I also think challenges are out of control. What's worse are some of the actions here in the forums.. to call out and to disparage the OP by digging up cache history because it's something you don't desire. To me that's more obnoxious than lame reviewer notes and out of control challenges.

Link to comment

I see both sides.. I think the reviewer note was uncalled for but I also think challenges are out of control. What's worse are some of the actions here in the forums.. to call out and to disparage the OP by digging up cache history because it's something you don't desire. To me that's more obnoxious than lame reviewer notes and out of control challenges.

 

Either I'm completely misreading your post, or you're saying that people who do their research and gather the facts before expressing an opinion are behaving in an obnoxious manner? :huh:

 

And then you go on to agree with the findings of a number of posters here, that the challenges are out of control - which suggests that you also did your research and gathered the facts before expressing an opinion which, by your own measure, would indicate that you too are behaving in an obnoxious manner.

 

I must have it wrong.

Link to comment

Agreed, the reviewer comment mentioned seemed unhelpful. Although we don't see any backstory.

 

==================================================================

 

Speaking of backstory, I took a look at the OP's extensive list of owned Challenges. I think several fit in the category described in post #4.

 

I see both sides.. I think the reviewer note was uncalled for but I also think challenges are out of control. What's worse are some of the actions here in the forums.. to call out and to disparage the OP by digging up cache history because it's something you don't desire. To me that's more obnoxious than lame reviewer notes and out of control challenges.

 

In this case, i don't see both sides at all. A reviewer should never voice a negative opinion like what was stated in the original post. He/she might offer up a helpful suggestion or tip but they should not call a person's cache idea silly. For the most part, he/she should look at what's presented and publish the cache if it meets gc.com guidelines. If it doesn't, then a dialog between both parties can be opened to hopefully correct any problems.

Link to comment

I think some people in here need to note that the comment was from a second reviewer, not the one initially reviewing the OP's cache, and it was not a denial of publication. I see no problem with a reviewer expressing their opinion, and there's nothing saying they can't. They just can't deny a cache based on their personal opinion. I do think they could have worded it more diplomatically, but otherwise it seems fine to me.

 

I can also see why the reviewer said what they did and agree. IMO, a cache owner should be able to describe a challenge cache's requirements to someone else in 10 seconds or less or in a couple of lines of text. "Find a cache on every day of the year", "Find every cache within 2 miles of this spot", and "Find 100 puzzles" are "succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document". If the list of requirements is so long or convoluted that even the OP can't remember them all off the top of their head, it's too much. I suspect that's the case with some of the OP's challenge caches. This is my personal opinion, and YMMV.

Link to comment

Agreed, the reviewer comment mentioned seemed unhelpful. Although we don't see any backstory.

 

==================================================================

 

Speaking of backstory, I took a look at the OP's extensive list of owned Challenges. I think several fit in the category described in post #4.

 

I see both sides.. I think the reviewer note was uncalled for but I also think challenges are out of control. What's worse are some of the actions here in the forums.. to call out and to disparage the OP by digging up cache history because it's something you don't desire. To me that's more obnoxious than lame reviewer notes and out of control challenges.

 

Ive been called abhorrent, abominable, annoying, awful, beastly, a big mouth ,contemptible, detestable, disagreeable, disgusting, dislikable, displeasing, foul, gross, hateable, hateful, hellish, horrible, heinous, a heel, horrid, insufferable, invidious, loathsome, lousy, mean, nasty, nauseating, objectionable, odious, off-color, ornery, a pain in the neck, pesky, pestiferous, a pill, repellent, reprehensible, repugnant, repulsive, terrible, vile, revolting, rotten, sorry, sickening, stinking, unpleasant , wretched, execrable, bellicose, brusque, cantankerous, churlish, contentious, contrary, cross, difficult, disobliging, disputatious, eristic, grouchy, ill-natured, peevish, pettish, petulant, querulous, rude, snappy, surly, ugly, unfriendly, ungracious, unlikable, and unpleasant.

 

But this is a first for me, "obnoxious". Thanks for adding to my repertoire!

Link to comment

If the cache is well thought out and has a clear path of progression.. who gives a fart what hoops someone has to go through?

 

I 100% disagree with the reviewer and would have replied with something like, "Life is so fleeting.. why get out of bed at all....eh?"

 

I commend you for trying to create something, even if it might be a little bit elaborate to some/many.

 

Shaun

Link to comment

time going over their own finds to come up with these ridiculous combinations.

 

My submitted geocache is a poker-themed geocache and requires geocachers to find various geocaches as outlined in the ten standard hands of a poker game.

 

Ah, there's the problem. There are not ten standard hands in a poker game! It is erroneous to say a "royal flush" is different from a "straight flush." It's just an ace high straight flush. This is no doubt what enraged the reviewer.

But I agree, his words were uncalled for.

Link to comment

I must confess that I'm not a fan of challenges which required sitting in front of a PC for hours on end locating and listing qualifying evidence, with criteria so convoluted I end up having to email the CO for clarification, just to understand them.

 

The other week I spent over two hours making a bookmark list for a single challenge cache that I already know will have absolutely nothing remarkable about it but I could walk to in 15 minutes, but FTF's gone - so I'll save it for the August souvenir thing.

 

After doing a few and ending up with a distinctly average and sometimes below par cache at the end, I tend to ignore them as I find the reward does not match the required effort.

 

Yet you expect cache finders to sit behind a PC for one of your 'convoluted' puzzle caches for hours on end getting nothing in return.

 

And again you criticise the quality of my caches on a forum I do not frequent. Say these things to my face or on a message.

 

How is my cache "absolutely unremarkable?"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I must confess that I'm not a fan of challenges which required sitting in front of a PC for hours on end locating and listing qualifying evidence, with criteria so convoluted I end up having to email the CO for clarification, just to understand them.

 

The other week I spent over two hours making a bookmark list for a single challenge cache that I already know will have absolutely nothing remarkable about it but I could walk to in 15 minutes, but FTF's gone - so I'll save it for the August souvenir thing.

 

After doing a few and ending up with a distinctly average and sometimes below par cache at the end, I tend to ignore them as I find the reward does not match the required effort.

 

Yet you expect cache finders to sit behind a PC for one of your 'convoluted' puzzle caches for hours on end getting nothing in return.

 

And again you criticise the quality of my caches on a forum I do not frequent. Say these things to my face or on a message.

 

:SIGH: :rolleyes:

 

Another flame war?

 

Do we really need to go over this old ground again? Here?

 

I'll tell you what my expectations are - that those who enjoy puzzles will do them and those that don't won't. Nothing more than that. So that's that boxed off.

 

I've made no identifiable reference to any cache here - the only person identifying any particular caches here is you.

 

I'm simply citing a generic example which fits the thread topic and my personal view.

 

How is my cache "absolutely unremarkable?"

 

Is there some way in which would you say it is remarkable?

Link to comment

Sorry to hear you're having trouble with your poker challenge cache. I hope you can work it out.

 

I'm working on a poker challenge right now and I have to admit that I'm having sooo much fun and quality geocaching time doing it.

 

Some of the qualifications have been tough for me to meet, but that's the point. I can't wait to finish and write my log!

 

Two more hands to go. Wish me luck!

Link to comment

I think this thread should be less about how you think about the OP's challenges, and more about the words in the reviewers response.

 

thank you. this is what the thread SHOULD be about and not at all about liking challenge caches or not or even how the op set up challenge caches.

 

the reviewer was 100% wrong in how he/she worded it. it was rude, degrading and completely unprofessional. this seems to be a growing trend with some reviewers. and too many folks are afriad to say it. is this how customer service is supposed to behave? volunteers or not, they DO represent Groundspeak whther they or Groundspeak want to accept it or not. sadly because the "i dont like challeneges" contingent exists, they are going to side with the reviewer. not acceptable at all.

Link to comment

the reviewer was 100% wrong in how he/she worded it. it was rude, degrading and completely unprofessional. this seems to be a growing trend with some reviewers. and too many folks are afriad to say it. is this how customer service is supposed to behave? volunteers or not, they DO represent Groundspeak whther they or Groundspeak want to accept it or not. sadly because the "i dont like challeneges" contingent exists, they are going to side with the reviewer. not acceptable at all.

 

I do not consider it "rude, degrading and completely unprofessional". Reviewers are entitled to their opinions. They are not indistinguishable hamsters, rolled off one treadmill. They are humans, with their own frames of mind. Yes! They are permitted to think!

I've dealt with nine or eleven reviewers in my time. I've gotten "Do you really want to hide such an obtuse puzzle?" "Yes." "Okay. If you insist."

"Do you really expect geocachers to read your mind?" "Sure? Why not?" "Okay. If you insist. We'll let the geocachers be the judge."

I do not these discussions to be "rude, degrading and completely unprofessional." Valid questions on the part of the reviewers. Slowed down the publication by a week or two. Oh, well. Reviewers are humans, not hamsters. They have, and are entitled to their opinions. I can deal with this.

Link to comment

the reviewer was 100% wrong in how he/she worded it. it was rude, degrading and completely unprofessional. this seems to be a growing trend with some reviewers. and too many folks are afriad to say it. is this how customer service is supposed to behave? volunteers or not, they DO represent Groundspeak whther they or Groundspeak want to accept it or not. sadly because the "i dont like challeneges" contingent exists, they are going to side with the reviewer. not acceptable at all.

 

I do not consider it "rude, degrading and completely unprofessional". Reviewers are entitled to their opinions. They are not indistinguishable hamsters, rolled off one treadmill. They are humans, with their own frames of mind. Yes! They are permitted to think!

I've dealt with nine or eleven reviewers in my time. I've gotten "Do you really want to hide such an obtuse puzzle?" "Yes." "Okay. If you insist."

"Do you really expect geocachers to read your mind?" "Sure? Why not?" "Okay. If you insist. We'll let the geocachers be the judge."

I do not these discussions to be "rude, degrading and completely unprofessional." Valid questions on the part of the reviewers. Slowed down the publication by a week or two. Oh, well. Reviewers are humans, not hamsters. They have, and are entitled to their opinions. I can deal with this.

 

In this case, and if the OP is not leaving out anything, the reviewer is being degrading. Sure reviewers have opinions, likes and dislikes, but they need to keep those to themselves when reviewing caches. The cache needs only to meet guidelines to be published, not meet personal expectations of a reviewer.

 

I would bet money that there are reviewers out there who dislike and think LPCs are lame. But i've never heard of any of them posting a reviewer note or emailing a cacher that the LPC they were trying to get published, was silly.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...