This is a first for me...

[Clan Riffster]

"Do you really want to hide such an obtuse puzzle?" "Yes." "Okay. If you insist."

Not rude.

"Do you really want to hide such a silly, useless, ridiculous puzzle?"

Rude

 

"Do you really expect geocachers to read your mind?" "Sure? Why not?" "Okay. If you insist.

Not rude.

"Do you really expect geocachers to read your silly, useless, ridiculous mind?"

Rude

 

They have, and are entitled to their opinions.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The problem comes when someone chooses to express their opinion, in a negative manner. It is at that point that the label of 'Rude' can be aptly applied. It gets worse when someone is deliberately rude while representing some organization. Imagine I am acting in my capacity as a law enforcement officer, and I pull over your Aunt Edna for speeding. Clearly, anyone paying even a hint of attention can see the prominently displayed speed limit sign, so, were I inclined to thinking negative thoughts about folks, I might deduce that she was of diminished intellect. I would be perfectly within my rights to have an opinion to the effect of, "That lady is an idiot". But what if I expressed that opinion to Aunt Edna? That would be crossing a major line in social etiquette. Now, bump it up one more level. I'm volunteering for a State Forest. Your Aunt Edna shows up and asks what time they close the gates, when the closure time is clearly posted on the gate. Again, if I were so inclined to negative thoughts, I might think your Aunt Edna was stupid. I would even be well within my rights to think so. But if I were to tell Aunt Edna, "Don't be an idiot! The times are posted on the gate. Sheesh.", I would be, at a minimum, be scolded. Probably terminated. And my boss would be well within their rights to boot me to the curb.

 

Looking at what the Reviewer opined, I'm seeing a lot of rudeness, verbalized to a paying customer, by a volunteer.

 

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?

Edited August 19, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[+Packanack]

Did anyone consider that the reviewer might have been , not rude, not abrupt, not condescending, but 100% spot on correct and the cache owner so full of himself to not even consider that possibility?

[Clan Riffster]

Did anyone consider that the reviewer might have been , not rude, not abrupt, not condescending, but 100% spot on correct and the cache owner so full of himself to not even consider that possibility?

I'm not a fan of the direction challenge caches seem to be headed these days, at least locally. The driving force around here seems to be, let's make our challenge caches so convoluted and technical it takes a team of lawyers two days to figure out how to log a find. Were I to come up with adjectives to describe the average local challenge cache, words like silly, ridiculous and useless would come to mind. As noted above, if I were also a volunteer, representing a company to a paying customer, I would never express such negativity verbally.

 

To do so would be rude.

[4wheelin_fool]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest, which is much more refreshing than a bot-like boilerplate message. I can see that reviewing some of these challenge caches can get more and more time consuming as they get more complicated.

[+Team Microdot]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest, which is much more refreshing than a bot-like boilerplate message. I can see that reviewing some of these challenge caches can get more and more time consuming as they get more complicated.

 

+1

 

Reviewers are just fellow cachers who give their time freely on behalf of the rest of us.

 

I find it useful when fleshing out a new caching idea to have a sounding board - someone to give an honest, un-romantic opinion of the idea, as a whole and of areas where it might be improved or indeed whether it stinks, free of fuss and cumbersome diplomacy.

 

Reviewers make great sounding boards and are happy to share their views - recognising of course that they have to straddle the line between serving cachers as individuals and as a community and serving Groundspeak all at the same time.

 

I'd rather a sounding board with a real opinion and some passion for the game than a disinterested robot, playing it safe and pressing all the right buttons just for the sake of rigid etiquette where nobody says what they are really thinking.

[+Mudfrog]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest, which is much more refreshing than a bot-like boilerplate message. I can see that reviewing some of these challenge caches can get more and more time consuming as they get more complicated.

 

+1

 

Reviewers are just fellow cachers who give their time freely on behalf of the rest of us.

 

I find it useful when fleshing out a new caching idea to have a sounding board - someone to give an honest, un-romantic opinion of the idea, as a whole and of areas where it might be improved or indeed whether it stinks, free of fuss and cumbersome diplomacy.

 

Reviewers make great sounding boards and are happy to share their views - recognising of course that they have to straddle the line between serving cachers as individuals and as a community and serving Groundspeak all at the same time.

 

I'd rather a sounding board with a real opinion and some passion for the game than a disinterested robot, playing it safe and pressing all the right buttons just for the sake of rigid etiquette where nobody says what they are really thinking.

 

I disagree. It shouldn't matter how goofy, silly, boring, tedious, or challenging a cache sounds to a reviewer. When in reviewing mode, he/she should only look to see if the cache meets gc.com's listing requirements. Offering advice, giving a tip, asking "what if", or "did you think about this" questions are all good. Calling someone's cache silly, during the review process, is not.

[+Team Microdot]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest, which is much more refreshing than a bot-like boilerplate message. I can see that reviewing some of these challenge caches can get more and more time consuming as they get more complicated.

 

+1

 

Reviewers are just fellow cachers who give their time freely on behalf of the rest of us.

 

I find it useful when fleshing out a new caching idea to have a sounding board - someone to give an honest, un-romantic opinion of the idea, as a whole and of areas where it might be improved or indeed whether it stinks, free of fuss and cumbersome diplomacy.

 

Reviewers make great sounding boards and are happy to share their views - recognising of course that they have to straddle the line between serving cachers as individuals and as a community and serving Groundspeak all at the same time.

 

I'd rather a sounding board with a real opinion and some passion for the game than a disinterested robot, playing it safe and pressing all the right buttons just for the sake of rigid etiquette where nobody says what they are really thinking.

 

I disagree. It shouldn't matter how goofy, silly, boring, tedious, or challenging a cache sounds to a reviewer. When in reviewing mode, he/she should only look to see if the cache meets gc.com's listing requirements. Offering advice, giving a tip, asking "what if", or "did you think about this" questions are all good. Calling someone's cache silly, during the review process, is not.

 

Then we disagree.

[+Mudfrog]

I'd rather a sounding board with a real opinion and some passion for the game than a disinterested robot,

 

Don't want to imply that a reviewer is a "disinterested robot" but this seems to go along with so many guardrail and LPCs being published daily. I'm sure there are reviewers who love these kinds of caches and like publishing them. But i also figure there are many who don't care for them, yet they crank em out daily without question or any kind of response.

[+Team Microdot]

I'd rather a sounding board with a real opinion and some passion for the game than a disinterested robot,

 

Don't want to imply that a reviewer is a "disinterested robot" but this seems to go along with so many guardrail and LPCs being published daily. I'm sure there are reviewers who love these kinds of caches and like publishing them. But i also figure there are many who don't care for them, yet they crank em out daily without question or any kind of response.

 

Not quite sure what point you're making here, but you're moving away from the OP somewhat - no need to satisfy complicated eligibility critera in order to log the average guardrail or LPC - so these are quite different things.

[4wheelin_fool]

I'd rather a sounding board with a real opinion and some passion for the game than a disinterested robot,

 

Don't want to imply that a reviewer is a "disinterested robot" but this seems to go along with so many guardrail and LPCs being published daily. I'm sure there are reviewers who love these kinds of caches and like publishing them. But i also figure there are many who don't care for them, yet they crank em out daily without question or any kind of response.

 

There are so many of them, I don't think they would have time to give an individual response on each one. If someone did attempt it, it would end up as a boilerplate message anyhow. In this case someone is doing something unusual, and the reviewer is giving their honest opinion of it. The OP could write back and give an honest reply on why he feels it has merit, and both sides may learn something that they didn't know previously.

[+Team Microdot]

I'd rather a sounding board with a real opinion and some passion for the game than a disinterested robot,

 

Don't want to imply that a reviewer is a "disinterested robot" but this seems to go along with so many guardrail and LPCs being published daily. I'm sure there are reviewers who love these kinds of caches and like publishing them. But i also figure there are many who don't care for them, yet they crank em out daily without question or any kind of response.

 

There are so many of them, I don't think they would have time to give an individual response on each one. If someone did attempt it, it would end up as a boilerplate message anyhow. In this case someone is doing something unusual, and the reviewer is giving their honest opinion of it. The OP could write back and give an honest reply on why he feels it has merit, and both sides may learn something that they didn't know previously.

 

If there was an applause smiley on here I'd be using it now - common sense, at last

[Pup Patrol]

So a reviewer is considering the "wow" factor before publishing a cache?

 

That's what "personal opinion" becomes when it's added into the review process.

 

Which I thought reviewers tried to avoid at all costs.

 

Mixed messages again.

 

 

B.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I disagree. It shouldn't matter how goofy, silly, boring, tedious, or challenging a cache sounds to a reviewer. When in reviewing mode, he/she should only look to see if the cache meets gc.com's listing requirements. Offering advice, giving a tip, asking "what if", or "did you think about this" questions are all good. Calling someone's cache silly, during the review process, is not.

 

So then the reviewer just asks "Did you think about how silly and overly complex that challenge cache is?"

[+Mudfrog]

I'd rather a sounding board with a real opinion and some passion for the game than a disinterested robot,

 

Don't want to imply that a reviewer is a "disinterested robot" but this seems to go along with so many guardrail and LPCs being published daily. I'm sure there are reviewers who love these kinds of caches and like publishing them. But i also figure there are many who don't care for them, yet they crank em out daily without question or any kind of response.

 

There are so many of them, I don't think they would have time to give an individual response on each one. If someone did attempt it, it would end up as a boilerplate message anyhow. In this case someone is doing something unusual, and the reviewer is giving their honest opinion of it. The OP could write back and give an honest reply on why he feels it has merit, and both sides may learn something that they didn't know previously.

 

I'm not saying there should be a response to the multitude of lpcs and guardrails being submitted. I've been saying just the opposite in this thread. The disinterested robot statement made me think about it from another angle. You know,,, robotic assembly line, the same type of cache repeatedly submitted, review, publish, review, publish. It's gotta get pretty boring for reviewers.

[Clan Riffster]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest

If I pull over Harry's 90 year old Aunt Edna, and tell her she is ridiculous, silly and useless, for driving 5 miles down the highway with her right turn signal blinking, chances are, if I claim I was just being candid, blunt and honest, I'd still be viewing life from the back of an unemployment line. I think the Reviewer could've offered the same advice without the negative implications.

[+Mudfrog]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest

If I pull over Harry's 90 year old Aunt Edna, and tell her she is ridiculous, silly and useless, for driving 5 miles down the highway with her right turn signal blinking, chances are, if I claim I was just being candid, blunt and honest, I'd still be viewing life from the back of an unemployment line. I think the Reviewer could've offered the same advice without the negative implications.

 

The thing is, the reviewer wasn't even offering advice. He or she clearly didn't like the sound of the cache submission and threw out his negative opinion about it.

 

Here's his reply again:

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?

 

The OP most likely thought his cache might be fun or he would not have submitted it. Future cache finders should be able to make up their own mind on how much effort they want to put into a cache find or whether they want to jump through hoops or not to claim it. That's not the reviewer's job.

[4wheelin_fool]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest

If I pull over Harry's 90 year old Aunt Edna, and tell her she is ridiculous, silly and useless, for driving 5 miles down the highway with her right turn signal blinking, chances are, if I claim I was just being candid, blunt and honest, I'd still be viewing life from the back of an unemployment line. I think the Reviewer could've offered the same advice without the negative implications.

 

Depending on what area you live in. In a small town, that type of dialog is frequent, and Aunt Edna would be thanking the officer for pointing it out.

 

The reviewers are unpaid volunteers, not paid lackeys anyhow. There is a difference. Id like to believe that the reviewers are volunteering because they are dedicated to steering the game in the correct direction, rather than working for free to help a multimillion dollar website save money, or to feel important.

 

Groundspeak could probably replace them with outsourced jobs in other countries. Someone in Indiia working for $8 per day, who has never found a cache could easily review and provide boilerplate responses. Many computer companies do this. However, I think the game would probably suffer.

[+Ambrosia]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest

If I pull over Harry's 90 year old Aunt Edna, and tell her she is ridiculous, silly and useless, for driving 5 miles down the highway with her right turn signal blinking, chances are, if I claim I was just being candid, blunt and honest, I'd still be viewing life from the back of an unemployment line. I think the Reviewer could've offered the same advice without the negative implications.

 

Depending on what area you live in. In a small town, that type of dialog is frequent, and Aunt Edna would be thanking the officer for pointing it out.

 

The reviewers are unpaid volunteers, not paid lackeys anyhow. There is a difference. Id like to believe that the reviewers are volunteering because they are dedicated to steering the game in the correct direction, rather than working for free to help a multimillion dollar website save money, or to feel important.

 

Groundspeak could probably replace them with outsourced jobs in other countries. Someone in Indiia working for $8 per day, who has never found a cache could easily review and provide boilerplate responses. Many computer companies do this. However, I think the game would probably suffer.

 

Hey, I just spent a month in India, does that count? Hm...$8 a day would be a huge pay bump.

[+Team Microdot]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest

If I pull over Harry's 90 year old Aunt Edna, and tell her she is ridiculous, silly and useless, for driving 5 miles down the highway with her right turn signal blinking, chances are, if I claim I was just being candid, blunt and honest, I'd still be viewing life from the back of an unemployment line. I think the Reviewer could've offered the same advice without the negative implications.

 

In fairness though - that's a quite different thing altogether and you're in a quite different role.

 

What you're talking about there is potentially a non-trivial issue - given the age of Harry's Aunt Edna and the fact that her less than precise manner of driving could have implications both for her own safety and that of other people - and it's something she herself probably isn't even aware of - and you have a real duty of care and responsibility. Important things like this demand a certain degree of decorum and quality of attention.

 

The subject of the thread revolves around hiding plastic boxes for people to find - fairly trivial by comparison.

[Clan Riffster]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest

If I pull over Harry's 90 year old Aunt Edna, and tell her she is ridiculous, silly and useless, for driving 5 miles down the highway with her right turn signal blinking, chances are, if I claim I was just being candid, blunt and honest, I'd still be viewing life from the back of an unemployment line. I think the Reviewer could've offered the same advice without the negative implications.

The reviewers are unpaid volunteers, not paid lackeys anyhow.

I'm not sure that rude replies are only a bad thing if they come from someone who is getting paid, but since both you and Team Mcrodot made essentially the same point, let's change a few things in my imaginary scenario and see if it's still acceptable, or if it's rude:

 

One of my other jobs is a volunteer for the Florida Forestry Service, (Little Big Econ & Charles H Bronson State Forests) checking potential cache hide locations for viability, and issuing permits if they pass muster. For argument's sake, let's say Harry's 90 year old Aunt Edna submits a permit to hide a film can in a field of endangered ferns. My actual reply would be something to the effect of;

 

Hi Edna! Thank you for your geocaching permit application. There are a couple concerns I have, and as someone who loves finding caches, I hope you will let me help you get your permit approved. As noted in the Florida Forestry Service geocaching rules, they only allow ammo cans for cache hides. The reasons for this are many, but the main one cited by FFS is safety. State Forests are subject to controlled burns, and there was an unfortunate incident some time ago, where one of their firefighters was seriously injured when he stepped in a pile of molten Tupperware. The Little Big Econ State Forest actually considered banning geocaching forever, till we suggested ammo cans, which don't tend to puddle plastic. If you have trouble finding an ammo can, I can point you to a few local sources.

 

My other concern is your location. The FFS has given me pretty clear instructions regarding where they will allow caches, and where they will not. I love the field of ferns your hide shows off. Great spot! Unfortunately, by placing a cache in the middle of it, folks will walk around through the ferns. These ferns are considered endangered, and they don't stand up very well to folks walking through them. Can I offer a compromise? Could you hide your cache near the edge of the fern field? That way you get to show of the amazing location you found, without getting the FFS folks upset.

 

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.

 

Sean, AKA: Clan Riffster

555-123-4567

 

I've expressed my opinions in a positive manner, whilst citing the rules.

 

Or, I could respond in the same manner as the aforementioned reviewer did;

 

Edna, I just got your cache permit application. Are you for real? It is ridiculous that someone who is bright enough to complete this form somehow can't be bothered to read the rules. I think the title of your cache is silly, and I suggest you stop wasting my time with these worthless applications. Read the rules! Don't hide caches in sensitive areas, and don't hide anything but an ammo can! Sheesh..

 

As with the first response, I offered my opinion, and cited what needed to be corrected.

 

Presumably, since I'm not getting paid for the work I do with FFS, you'd say this reply was okay...

[+MKFmly]

The reviewer was being candid, blunt, and honest, which is much more refreshing than a bot-like boilerplate message.

--snip--

 

+1

 

Reviewers are just fellow cachers who give their time freely on behalf of the rest of us.

 

Why in this modern age do people hold "volunteers" to a lower standard and/or give them a free pass because they believe "their heart is in the right place"?

 

As a paying customer I expect agents of Groundspeak to be professional, respectful, and to complete their assigments in a approproate time frame regardless of their renumeration.

 

Reviewers have been recruited to ensure caches meet the minimum stated guidelines of Groundspeak. They were not recruited to be "judges" of cache quality nor enforce any sort of personal preference/opinion/agenda.

[+dprovan]

Why in this modern age do people hold "volunteers" to a lower standard and/or give them a free pass because they believe "their heart is in the right place"?

We are more lenient judging volunteers because they automatically add value. If someone is being paid, you have to measure what they're contributing to what they are paid. Generally we think that what they're paid is what they're worth, hence any negative behavior reduces their value below zero. Since a volunteer isn't paid, we can only weigh any negative behavior against what they accomplish. Does this reviewer's rudeness outweigh all the work he's done reviewing caches?

 

I don't have an answer to that question, and this doesn't mean reviewers can be rude, but that's why we give volunteers slack.

[+Team Microdot]

Why in this modern age do people hold "volunteers" to a lower standard and/or give them a free pass because they believe "their heart is in the right place"?

We are more lenient judging volunteers because they automatically add value. If someone is being paid, you have to measure what they're contributing to what they are paid. Generally we think that what they're paid is what they're worth, hence any negative behavior reduces their value below zero. Since a volunteer isn't paid, we can only weigh any negative behavior against what they accomplish. Does this reviewer's rudeness outweigh all the work he's done reviewing caches?

 

I don't have an answer to that question, and this doesn't mean reviewers can be rude, but that's why we give volunteers slack.

 

Nicely explained

[+OZ2CPU]

why make a very silly challenge cache, when so maybe people dislike them ?

[+Mudfrog]

Why in this modern age do people hold "volunteers" to a lower standard and/or give them a free pass because they believe "their heart is in the right place"?

We are more lenient judging volunteers because they automatically add value. If someone is being paid, you have to measure what they're contributing to what they are paid. Generally we think that what they're paid is what they're worth, hence any negative behavior reduces their value below zero. Since a volunteer isn't paid, we can only weigh any negative behavior against what they accomplish. Does this reviewer's rudeness outweigh all the work he's done reviewing caches?

 

I don't have an answer to that question, and this doesn't mean reviewers can be rude, but that's why we give volunteers slack.

 

We do tend to be more lenient with volunteers. But in the case of reviewers who work with customers everyday, we expect some professionalism. The basic responsibility of a reviewer is to try and make sure a cache submission meets gc.com guidelines. They can work with cache owners to establish that and they can offer advice or let an owner know of a potential problem if they desire. But it's not their job to tell someone that their cache is silly or stinks during the review process.

[+Team Microdot]

But in the case of reviewers who work with customers everyday, we expect some professionalism.

 

And that's exactly what we get

 

Until one time a reviewer happens to express a view that a number of posters on this thread have already agreed with and out come the pitchforks and flaming torches...

[4wheelin_fool]

Edna, I just got your cache permit application. Are you for real? It is ridiculous that someone who is bright enough to complete this form somehow can't be bothered to read the rules. I think the title of your cache is silly, and I suggest you stop wasting my time with these worthless applications. Read the rules! Don't hide caches in sensitive areas, and don't hide anything but an ammo can! Sheesh..

 

As with the first response, I offered my opinion, and cited what needed to be corrected.

 

Presumably, since I'm not getting paid for the work I do with FFS, you'd say this reply was okay...

 

That's much different than the reviewer's reply.

 

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?

 

You have taken the adjectives and twisted them, along with adding some loathsome comments as well as other odious remarks. If it was really that bad, there would be no need to embellish upon it. To me, the reviewer was being candid, honest, and blunt. They probably should have used different verbiage, but most likely had to spend more time than necessary to determine how many people could qualify. "Silly" and "ridiculous" is exactly how I see the direction that Challenges is going. The most basic ones are worthy, but after those have been done, newer ones have to be more elaborate, convoluted and tortuous until the entire premise becomes absurd and nonsensical.

 

What is really happening here is that there are a growing number of people who become offended quite easily. It seems to become popular after a complaint gets resolved by having them get their way. If the trend continues, intricate words and adjectives will be reduced to just the most basic ones, until we are all using George Orwell's "Newspeak", and politically correct language will be the law.

Edited August 22, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+dprovan]

But in the case of reviewers who work with customers everyday, we expect some professionalism.

Reviewers don't work with customers, they work with fellow geocachers. And we get way, way more professionalism than I think we have any reason to expect.

[+The Magna Defender]

Its just the same as one of yours... a box in a tree at a generic location.

 

Why is it worth me solving one of your puzzles to find something unremarkable?

[+Mudfrog]

But in the case of reviewers who work with customers everyday, we expect some professionalism.

Reviewers don't work with customers, they work with fellow geocachers. And we get way, way more professionalism than I think we have any reason to expect.

 

We are customers, in a round about way. A reviewer volunteers his services but he/she also has to dole those services out under gc.com's policies. I would imagine that if a reviewer gets too many complaints from cachers, gc.com's customers, that gc.com will look into it and probably do something to alleviate any perceived problem.

 

That being said, i do agree with you. We are fortunate that the vast majority of reviewers are fellow cachers who like what doing what they do. They work with people, which you know has to cause many headaches, but continue to do so because of their love of geocaching. Overall, they do a great job and i do want to say here and now, that i appreciate everything that they do. But, they are human and can make mistakes. Imo, one of those mistakes was what got this thread started.

[Clan Riffster]

Edna, I just got your cache permit application. What, exactly, is the point of this? It is ridiculous that you did not read the cache placement rules. I think the title of your cache is silly. Why do you feel my time is useless?

 

As with the first response, I offered my opinion, and cited what needed to be corrected.

 

Presumably, since I'm not getting paid for the work I do with FFS, you'd say this reply was okay...

 

That's much different than the reviewer's reply.

 

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?

 

Okay, here's an unembellished version for you.

Now is it an acceptable reply from a volunteer to a customer?

[+Team Microdot]

Edna, I just got your cache permit application. What, exactly, is the point of this? It is ridiculous that you did not read the cache placement rules. I think the title of your cache is silly. Why do you feel my time is useless?

 

As with the first response, I offered my opinion, and cited what needed to be corrected.

 

Presumably, since I'm not getting paid for the work I do with FFS, you'd say this reply was okay...

 

That's much different than the reviewer's reply.

 

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?

 

Okay, here's an unembellished version for you.

Now is it an acceptable reply from a volunteer to a customer?

 

I think it would be more acceptable if the included grievance / basis of complaint was well formed.

 

At least with the reviewer response which gave rise to this thread we could see precisely what gave rise to his/her comments.

 

The example you've provided above just looks like a massive rant for no particularly good reason and doesn't even give any indication of what action the recipient could take to improve things.

[4wheelin_fool]

Edna, I just got your cache permit application. What, exactly, is the point of this? It is ridiculous that you did not read the cache placement rules. I think the title of your cache is silly. Why do you feel my time is useless?

 

As with the first response, I offered my opinion, and cited what needed to be corrected.

 

Presumably, since I'm not getting paid for the work I do with FFS, you'd say this reply was okay...

 

That's much different than the reviewer's reply.

 

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?

 

Okay, here's an unembellished version for you.

Now is it an acceptable reply from a volunteer to a customer?

 

Based on the challenge submitted, it seems fine to me. The OP has a list of LPC challenges which appear to be going the direction of silly and ridiculous. There are no other adjectives which are more concise to describe them. Silly and Ridiculous. Eventually, I would think that a little honest discouragement would be helpful to him before the train goes completely off track.

 

Challenges are simply ALRs which are geocaching related. ALRs started out just fine, but eventually became so silly and ridiculous that they were banned. Now Challenges are headed in the same direction. Where does one draw the line? They cant. Perhaps they will reach the same point and put their foot down and ban them all. The guy who then wants to place a decent 366 challenge is now unable to, because of all of the silly and ridiculous challenges placed in which nobody bothers finding after a while.

 

Honest communication should not be stifled. A reviewer is a fellow cacher, and is in the best position to tell them what they think. A paid lackey, probably not. Many do not go caching that much, and should act professional, which means being bound by politically correct language that is inherently a very poor form of communication. Using nothing but boiler plate, bot-like responses, how can someone be taken seriously?

Edited August 23, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+dprovan]

We are customers, in a round about way.

We are customers of Groundspeak, but we are not customers of the reviewer. We are their peers. I think that's an ideal arrangement, so I object to any suggestion that we should think of them as if they are employees of Groundspeak.

[+MKFmly]

We are customers of Groundspeak, but we are not customers of the reviewer. We are their peers. I think that's an ideal arrangement, so I object to any suggestion that we should think of them as if they are employees of Groundspeak.

Reviewers provide an exclusive service (publishing caches) to customers (geocachers) on behalf of Groundspeak. They are not peers but have been extended extra privileges/responsibilities to be an agent of Groundspeak. A service relationship exists regardless of the existance of a monetary transaction.

 

In a reviewers capacity as an agent of Groundspeak they evaluate caches against the stated guidelines. "Reviewers are entitled to their opinions" however they are restricted from passing judgement on "cache quality" based on those opinions.

 

Many people have a knack for being "candid, blunt, and honest" while at the same time being polite, respectful, and helpful, without the use of boilerplate and/or "politically correct" language. Just check out most of the "moderater" posts on the forum...

[Clan Riffster]

Edna, I just got your cache permit application. What, exactly, is the point of this? It is ridiculous that you did not read the cache placement rules. I think the title of your cache is silly. Why do you feel my time is useless?

 

As with the first response, I offered my opinion, and cited what needed to be corrected.

 

Presumably, since I'm not getting paid for the work I do with FFS, you'd say this reply was okay...

 

That's much different than the reviewer's reply.

 

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?

 

Okay, here's an unembellished version for you.

Now is it an acceptable reply from a volunteer to a customer?

 

I think it would be more acceptable if the included grievance / basis of complaint was well formed.

 

I tried that last time. 4WF kicked it back covered in red ink.

 

Here's what I consider to be 'honest, candid and blunt':

Hi BillyBobNosePicker. I'm going over your latest cache submision, and thought I'd touch base with you on a couple things. Personally, I think if you're going to submit overtly complex challenges like this that you, as the cache owner, should be required to disprove that someone qualifies rather than the reverse, which is having the finders prove they qualify. Granted, my opinion is not what is in the guidelines, but I thought I'd share it with you for whatever it's worth. These are some very unique combinations, which could lead to some confusion. Can you tell me what the purpose is behind this challenge? Thanx! Your humble Reviewer.

 

You'll note that I expressed my concerns, offered my opinions, and left out entirely the insulting, patronizing verbiage, to include ridiculous, silly & worthless.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Here's what I consider to be 'honest, candid and blunt':

Hi BillyBobNosePicker. I'm going over your latest cache submision, and thought I'd touch base with you on a couple things. Personally, I think if you're going to submit overtly complex challenges like this that you, as the cache owner, should be required to disprove that someone qualifies rather than the reverse, which is having the finders prove they qualify. Granted, my opinion is not what is in the guidelines, but I thought I'd share it with you for whatever it's worth. These are some very unique combinations, which could lead to some confusion. Can you tell me what the purpose is behind this challenge? Thanx! Your humble Reviewer.

 

You'll note that I expressed my concerns, offered my opinions, and left out entirely the insulting, patronizing verbiage, to include ridiculous, silly & worthless.

 

That's perfect actually.

 

I still don't think the reviewer's reply was all that bad, but why is it still being discussed? I think if we are going to have silly arguments like this that you, as the forum reader, should be required to prove that the reviewer acted with malice rather than making me spend a bunch of useless time going over their verbiage to come up with these ridiculous replies. What, exactly, is the point of this?

[Clan Riffster]

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Challenges are simply ALRs which are geocaching related. ALRs started out just fine, but eventually became so silly and ridiculous that they were banned. Now Challenges are headed in the same direction. Where does one draw the line? They cant. Perhaps they will reach the same point and put their foot down and ban them all. The guy who then wants to place a decent 366 challenge is now unable to, because of all of the silly and ridiculous challenges placed in which nobody bothers finding after a while.

 

Perhaps they need to go the route of a souvenir (since they seem to be souvenir happy - 31 this month alone!).

 

GS can set up several of the standard challenges (Fizzy, Calendar, DeLormes,30, 100, 365 day streaks, etc) and award a souvenir. People still get their Challenges, and they are controlled. Maybe even have us cachers submit suggestions for new ones.

[Clan Riffster]

Perhaps they need to go the route of a souvenir (since they seem to be souvenir happy - 31 this month alone!).

 

GS can set up several of the standard challenges (Fizzy, Calendar, DeLormes,30, 100, 365 day streaks, etc) and award a souvenir. People still get their Challenges, and they are controlled. Maybe even have us cachers submit suggestions for new ones.

I've seen this idea posted in the forums before. I liked it then. I like it now.

Sadly, the likely end result is that, if Groundspeak does this, they'll launch it without a lot of input from players, change how they show up in your stats once a vocal minority howls about them, then, again with little to no input from players, erase any evidence that some folks really tried to make them work, followed by some pithy comment regarding making better mistakes tomorrow.

 

Based on how Groundspeak treated me in the past, I'm reluctant to participate in any new things they offer.