Jump to content

Appeal Process


edexter

Recommended Posts

Some random, unofficial observations:

 

1. There will always be a percentage of successful appeals due to an individual reviewer not having "read the memo" on some obscure point of guideline interpretation. We are always happy to be corrected in those cases, as it means a cache will be published and the reviewer will always remember the obscure detail in the future.

 

2. Over the years, the percentage of successful appeals has likely decreased. This is due in no small part to the work of the Lackeys at Geocaching HQ who are responsible for guiding the efforts of the volunteer cache reviewers. The odds of reviewers being "off the reservation" are lower now than in 2003, due to better communication and coordination. That said, it is impossible to get every single reviewer ruling exactly the same way on every single listing guideline -- and that's fine. Remember, many reviewers are dogs. If a dog crosses the invisible fence, they can expect to get zapped. The Appeals team is our invisible fence.

 

3. On "judgment call" issues, like whether to publish an event on only 11 days notice or whether to grant an exception to the cache saturation guideline for a new cache that's 500 feet from an old one, Appeals will rarely overrule the local reviewer's judgment. There needs to be some sort of demonstrable error in judgment or misapplication of a guideline.

Link to comment

Staff might have an idea, but I doubt if they keep track.

 

As a reviewer, I'm not often overturned on appeal.

 

I do sometimes suggest that cachers go to appeals, borderline stuff of various flavors, where I'm okay with whatever staff wants to do - but I'm not real comfortable publishing as is.

The folks who handle appeals have a lot of experience - they can sometimes find a way to salvage the cache owner's intent with changes that make the cache publishable.

Link to comment

... due to an individual reviewer not having "read the memo" on some obscure point of guideline interpretation.

If the reviewer didn't read the memo then how do you suppose the average cacher feels since we have no idea what is in these memos.

 

Guidelines do change and I suspect that even though reviewers have a channel to find out about these changes, that sometimes it gets missed. However, I would have a hard time going to appeal if the reviewer was using the same old interpretation that I was familiar with and I was unaware that Groundspeak had a new more liberal interpretation.

 

Instead I suspect that appeals are generally where a reviewer did make some judgement call. Perhaps in most cases, HQ will support the reviewer because the guidelines leave it up to their judgement (although without the "memo" one can only assume it's left up to the reviewer). It's when there are too many people who complain that their reviewer is making the wrong judgment that Groundspeak will issue a new "memo" that takes away reviewer descretion. My guess is that more often then not, the guidelines are given a more restrictive interpretation, though certainly there have been case where the reviewers are told to publish where before they could withold publication.

Link to comment

 

If the reviewer didn't read the memo then how do you suppose the average cacher feels since we have no idea what is in these memos.

 

Guidelines do change and I suspect that even though reviewers have a channel to find out about these changes, that sometimes it gets missed. However, I would have a hard time going to appeal if the reviewer was using the same old interpretation that I was familiar with and I was unaware that Groundspeak had a new more liberal interpretation.

 

Instead I suspect that appeals are generally where a reviewer did make some judgement call. Perhaps in most cases, HQ will support the reviewer because the guidelines leave it up to their judgement (although without the "memo" one can only assume it's left up to the reviewer). It's when there are too many people who complain that their reviewer is making the wrong judgment that Groundspeak will issue a new "memo" that takes away reviewer descretion. My guess is that more often then not, the guidelines are given a more restrictive interpretation, though certainly there have been case where the reviewers are told to publish where before they could withold publication.

 

A case in point. The rules for Challenge caches on GC.com were last updated 8/29/13. In March 2014 I submitted a challenge cache (find 2 consecutive caches on the same day more than 2,000Km apart). My local reviewer asked me to clarify the definition of a day and eventually we agreed on a form of words and the cache was published.

 

In September I submitted two more caches, one for 5,000Km and one for 10,000Km. To guarantee that there would be no difficulties, I copied and pasted the wording from the first cache, changed the 2,000 to 5,000 and 10,000 and changed the examples. The rules (or at least their interpretation) must have changed because the original wording was no longer acceptable. No problems. Another round of changes and they were both published. Obviously my local reviewer had received information that changed the interpretation of the rules.

 

People who submit caches for approval would really like them to be approved first go and I'm sure reviewers want people to submit caches that they can approve first go. Is there any way to make the latest interpretation available to a cache submitter? If I could have requested the latest interpretation before submitting the caches I could have made life easier for both the reviewer and myself.

Link to comment

... due to an individual reviewer not having "read the memo" on some obscure point of guideline interpretation.

If the reviewer didn't read the memo then how do you suppose the average cacher feels since we have no idea what is in these memos.

I feel pretty average and am rather unconcerned with Groundspeak memos. On the other hand, I can see how some here would like to be in the know on issues that they will likely never encounter.

Edited by Sharks-N-Beans
Link to comment

My local reviewer has been great and just requires a few changes before they agree. So all of my caches have been published even though about 4 of them had initial issues.

 

Working with your reviewer after an initial submission is rejected is different than taking a reviewers decision to appeal and the former probably happens fairly often. IMHO, a reviewers primary job is to help get a cache submission published, and part of that is helping a CO make any changes necessary that will allow the cache to be published.

Link to comment

My local reviewer has been great and just requires a few changes before they agree. So all of my caches have been published even though about 4 of them had initial issues.

 

Working with your reviewer after an initial submission is rejected is different than taking a reviewers decision to appeal and the former probably happens fairly often. IMHO, a reviewers primary job is to help get a cache submission published, and part of that is helping a CO make any changes necessary that will allow the cache to be published.

 

Yes. Definitely! Work with the reviewer. (Think I've worked with nine or ten so far...) They have had questions. ("Do you really want to hide that obtuse a puzzle?" "Do you expect people to read your mind?" "Yup." "Okay. we'll see what the geocachers have to say.") Hee hee hee. ("If it's 1* terrain, it must have the wheelchair attribute." "Okay. It's 1.5. Watch out for the next one!" (Okay. I didn't really say that...) ("How is your puzzle solved?") I find I very easy to work with the reviewers. I applaud them for that! (Well, we did have one reviewer who only reviewed on Thursdays. That could slow down publication, if she had a question.) Never had a problem with proximity. (Well, except for the Battle Ship cache...) Work with the reviewer, and most problems will be solved. Appeal to GS, and there's little chance the reviewer will be overturned. The reviewers are good.

Appealing deleted finds had generally been good. No. I had nothing good to say about the cache, but I did find it. No. The cacher obviously did not find the cache, or meet the requirements. We've not had any problems with the appeal process there.

Link to comment

Thank you NYPaddleCacher and Harry Dolphin for those observations.

 

It's true that the majority of listing guideline issues can be worked out between hider and reviewer, without the need to involve Appeals. Armed with better guidance from Geocaching HQ, reviewers today are well-equipped to offer up ways in which a cache can get published, whether it's "move the cache farther away" or "let me know when you obtain your land manager permit" or "remove this commercial text." In general I see fewer arguments and controversies than was the case five or ten years ago.

 

Sadly, when I do leave notes to explain an issue with a cache submission, the percentage of cache owners who simply never respond at all is increasing. Some weeks it's close to 50% but I've never kept official track of this. This happens even though my notes always spell out what must be done in order to solve the issue.

 

Overall I would guess that well fewer than 5% of all caches with listing guideline issues get appealed to headquarters. The rest are either resolved between the reviewer and owner, or just get archived due to the owner never responding.

Link to comment

I've only appealed a reviewer's decision once and ended up getting the cache published. The reviewer thought it was too commercial as it had the name of a public facility in the cache title, even after I repeatedly explained my reasons for why it wasn't commercial in quite a few back and forth emails. The person who made the appeals decision said I needed to change/remove 4 words in the write up to remove any semblance of a commercial aspect.

 

I had another puzzle cache (Halloween themed) that had a variety of candies listed in a "story" of what two trick or treaters got in their haul - Baby Ruth, M&Ms, Snickers, etc... The reviewer shot it down and I didn't bother reworking it as there really was no way to do so.

 

I've not felt the need to appeal anything else as the reviewers have been helpful with any questionable things they're not sure of.

Link to comment

I think I've gone to appeal only once and it was for some wording in the description related to the person for whom a park was named (a teenager died of a rare undiagnosed health condition and her parents created a foundation because of it). My reviewer was concerned about the wording but offered to forward it to appeals (I think just pow-wow with other Reviewers rather than to Groundspeak?). I tweaked the wording, extra review was still needed, but it got okayed and published. I had no problem with how my Reviewer handled the situation.

 

Other than wording in the description (which can usually be fixed), the stories I hear about appeals on cache publication don't seem like stuff that would usually get overturned. I get the impression many caches that go to appeals involve a CO being too stubborn about wanting their cache their way and refuse to compromise or adjust.

 

Regarding Keystone's comment about a lack of response to Reviewer Notes on rejected cache submissions: I think lots of caches that get submitted the CO has a short attention span or limited patience. They can't submit the cache they want where they want it, throw up their hands because it's too much trouble, and abandon the project. I suspect most of those abandoned rejections also sadly involve cache containers left to turn to trash.

 

If you're going to get that easily frustrated or be that stubborn you are probably better off not being a CO.

Link to comment
If you're going to get that easily frustrated or be that stubborn you are probably better off not being a CO.
Yes, kind of a hidden process that helps in weeding out irresponsible CO's.... B)
And why some of us think it's a good thing that Groundspeak's Geocaching app doesn't try to automate the cache hiding/listing process.
Link to comment
If you're going to get that easily frustrated or be that stubborn you are probably better off not being a CO.
Yes, kind of a hidden process that helps in weeding out irresponsible CO's.... B)
And why some of us think it's a good thing that Groundspeak's Geocaching app doesn't try to automate the cache hiding/listing process.

 

I kind of think it would be useful to at least make the app able to START a listing...as in begin the process by averaging coordinates, inputting container size, cache D/T ratings...basically all the stuff that can easily be done on a mobile device. It would then be 'handed off' to the full site for the completed write-up and fleshing out the descriptions and adding any images, graphics, etc.

There obviously would be no option to add the write-up or to publish the cache via the mobile apps, but even just starting it would be a nice feature as it would save a few steps of jumping from screen to page back to screen again...and also allow the hider to add in the cache's identifying code to the label and/or log sheet while still on-site.

Link to comment

Getting back to the OP, I'll answer from a Reviewers perspective. I have not kept track of the numbers so what follows is qualitative rather quantitative. Suffice to say that I have had Appeals support my decision much of the time, but not always.

 

Most people work with the Reviewer to work out any outstanding issues and this means that the percentage of cache submissions that actually go to appeals is pretty small.

 

Some of the caches that go to appeals are where there is a pretty clear and unambiguous guideline violation. It is very rare that Appeals will overrule the Reviewer in these cases.

 

Some of the caches that go to appeals are in gray areas or where the decision to not to publish is a judgement call. If this is the case, there is a greater chance of successful appeal.

 

By the way, speaking as a Reviewer, I never take it personally if someone does appeal a decision that I made. Indeed, I encourage people to make use of the appeals process. It serves the purpose of having additional eyeballs look at the situation and if that results in cache getting published that I initially rejected, then I am good with it. I often learn something from the results of an appeal and that helps me to be a better reviewer.

Link to comment

.

 

Does anyone have any idea what percentage of appeals for rejected caches are successful and result in the cache being published? No ax to grind, just wondering.

 

I suppose that would depend on the validity of the appeal, wouldn't it?

 

More likely it depends on the actual person on the other end of the line. I had one cache rejected supposedly because it was in violation of a rule. It was the next (sixth or seventh) cache in a series, no different in premise than the others. There were no rules violations and no problems with the others but, for some reason I cannot recall, the reviewer opted to pass it up the food chain for a ruling. It was rejected by a guy who basically behaved like a jerk. He misunderstood the premise and would not listen or dialogue in any way. A lot of work went into that cache and the others before it. In fact, I had just completed significant maintenance/upgrades to the prior caches in anticipation of placing the new one. He could not have cared less.

 

I know personally of only one other appeal regarding the most popular cache in this region that was shut down abruptly. In this case, there was a violation of the written rule but not the spirit. Obviously more of a gray area compared to mine in terms of discretion but like I said, it is the most popular cache in the area, managed by a very conscientious cacher. Once again, the guy up the food chain was a jerk.

 

Maybe some of the guys up there are reasonable. I know many reviewers are. But as for appeals, two jerks are too many.

 

.

Link to comment

 

I know personally of only one other appeal regarding the most popular cache in this region that was shut down abruptly. In this case, there was a violation of the written rule but not the spirit. Obviously more of a gray area compared to mine in terms of discretion but like I said, it is the most popular cache in the area, managed by a very conscientious cacher.

.

 

Curious about the bolded part. Let me guess, Was the cache archive due to the "no buried caches" guideline?

 

The popularity of a cache is not nor should it be criteria for whether or not a cache which violates the guidelines should be archived. Just imagine if reviewers considered quality of the cache when deciding whether or not to archive or publish a cache which violates the guidelines. A cache which was not considered "good enough" would get archived (or not published) and such a policy would cause far more drama than the archival of a popular cache.

Link to comment

We have a few reviewers in our area. But most of our caches are reviewed by these same cachers. Why would we want to go above there heads to try and get one published. I would think that would make them look at our hides more in the future. I think all of our reviewers are cool and if they cant make it work then it can't be done. I personally would never try and go above them and would just work with them to get one published. I have faith they know what they are doing and trying everything they can to get a cache idea I have published.

Link to comment

We have a few reviewers in our area. But most of our caches are reviewed by these same cachers. Why would we want to go above there heads to try and get one published. I would think that would make them look at our hides more in the future. I think all of our reviewers are cool and if they cant make it work then it can't be done. I personally would never try and go above them and would just work with them to get one published. I have faith they know what they are doing and trying everything they can to get a cache idea I have published.

I predict your next cache will be approved in about 25 seconds. :P

Link to comment

.

 

We are 0 for 3 in the appeals game.

 

Without going into details, my take is that Groundspeak will go out of it's way to not overrule a reviewer.

 

After all, why would they risk losing an unpaid volunteer who's efforts help the company earn profits? :unsure:

 

As opposed to losing a PAYING customer whose efforts help the company earn profits. <_<

 

.

Link to comment

Being a PAYING customer does not mean you've purchased the right to break a listing guideline or to sway a close judgment call in your favor. To the contrary, Geocaching HQ and the Volunteer Cache Reviewers do not consider a cache owner's premium membership status as a factor in reviewing caches or deciding appeals.

 

Turning down an Appeal is not done in order to appease the "free laborers" who review caches. To the contrary, Geocaching HQ and the Volunteer Cache Reviewers are aligned together in hoping to find a way to make a cache publishable. As several reviewers have posted, we do not mind being appealed or overruled, because we want to see caches get published and we want to do a good job in applying the guidelines.

 

There are, in fact, examples of Geocaching HQ saying "no" to a Volunteer Cache Reviewer's decision that have led to or contributed to that Volunteer's decision to resign/retire.

Link to comment

.

 

We are 0 for 3 in the appeals game.

 

Without going into details, my take is that Groundspeak will go out of it's way to not overrule a reviewer.

 

After all, why would they risk losing an unpaid volunteer who's efforts help the company earn profits? :unsure:

 

As opposed to losing a PAYING customer whose efforts help the company earn profits. <_<

 

.

Kind of a toss up in my opinion. I've worked at a handful of jobs where I've seen those "paying" customers escorted to the door due to their behavior driving away other "paying" customers. Some folks just aren't worth all the emotional baggage they bring with them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Being a PAYING customer does not mean you've purchased the right to break a listing guideline or to sway a close judgment call in your favor. To the contrary, Geocaching HQ and the Volunteer Cache Reviewers do not consider a cache owner's premium membership status as a factor in reviewing caches or deciding appeals.

 

Turning down an Appeal is not done in order to appease the "free laborers" who review caches. To the contrary, Geocaching HQ and the Volunteer Cache Reviewers are aligned together in hoping to find a way to make a cache publishable. As several reviewers have posted, we do not mind being appealed or overruled, because we want to see caches get published and we want to do a good job in applying the guidelines.

 

There are, in fact, examples of Geocaching HQ saying "no" to a Volunteer Cache Reviewer's decision that have led to or contributed to that Volunteer's decision to resign/retire.

 

To play devils advocate, maybe because they've come to expect that Groundspeak appeals is going to side with them almost every time? :ph34r:

 

P.S. I've noticed I've had yet another post deleted I didn't know about in this thread. That would make at least 4 in the past week. I wonder how long this one is going to last. It would also be nice if my PM's asking why they were deleted were not ignored. I don't find that very Christian like.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

What does it usually take to have your posts deleted? I've had it happen a couple of times, but that was when another person and I were waaayy off topic and jousting with each other.

 

I'm just curious what you could have said that made it happen 4 times in one thread.

Link to comment

What does it usually take to have your posts deleted? I've had it happen a couple of times, but that was when another person and I were waaayy off topic and jousting with each other.

 

I'm just curious what you could have said that made it happen 4 times in one thread.

 

Usually violating one or more of the following....

 

Forum Guidelines

 

...and yes, you're off topic again ;)

Link to comment

What does it usually take to have your posts deleted? I've had it happen a couple of times, but that was when another person and I were waaayy off topic and jousting with each other.

 

I'm just curious what you could have said that made it happen 4 times in one thread.

 

Usually violating one or more of the following....

 

Forum Guidelines

 

 

In the opinion of the volunteer deleting the posts, of course. No biggie, I can just take it to appeals, right? :lol:

 

EDIT: To clarify, I've had at least 4 posts deleted within the past 7 days (probably less than that, actually). I did not necessarily say they were in this thread. And the person I was accused of insulting in a thread did NOT report me, as verified by my apology email to to them. Not that I thought an apology was necessary, but any attempt to respond to them in the forums was promptly deleted by the "global forum moderator".

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

Turning down an Appeal is not done in order to appease the "free laborers" who review caches. To the contrary, Geocaching HQ and the Volunteer Cache Reviewers are aligned together in hoping to find a way to make a cache publishable.

 

I wasn't going to go into details, but here I go:

 

Last year I had an event listing rejected by a reviewer because of wording contained in an image on the listing that was deemed by the reviewer as an 'agenda'.

 

I appealed to Groundspeak, citing precedence in numerous other published listings. This included a listing published by the same reviewer six months prior that had the same phrase contained in my image, used as the cache title.

 

Soon after, I get a reply from the 'volunteer', siding with the reviewer stating that it was indeed an 'agenda' and violated the terms of use. I wasn't pleased with the decision, but I accepted it. I removed the image and the listing was published.

 

About a month later a new cache was published nearby, by a different reviewer this time, that has a title nearly identical to the wording in the image I had to delete. What gives?

 

I send an email to the volunteer in appeals asking why the wording in my image was considered an agenda, but this cache title was not. No reply, nothing. Just crickets chirping.

 

So what am I to believe?

 

I believe that the appeals volunteer did not want to go against the reviewers decision, and I wasn't afforded the courtesy of a response to my follow up email about the title of the other cache because they knew they couldn't defend their reasoning.

Link to comment

1. Appeals are handled by paid staff ("Lackeys") at Geocaching HQ, not by volunteers. When you appeal you are not just asking a second volunteer for their opinion; you are going to headquarters.

 

2. No cache serves as precedent for any other. Each cache listing is unique, and reviewers are empowered to exercise their judgment. Some reviewers come out on different sides of the same line. And, many reviewers are dogs.

 

3. Think of it this way: did you ever get a speeding ticket when it seemed like everyone else on the highway was going the same speed or even faster? Try telling the cop that it's inappropriate for him to ticket you while letting other speeders drive on down the highway. Odds are, this argument will not make him rip up the ticket.

Link to comment

Nothing against you or this topic JASTA 11... But in life and in work situations (IMO) it is best just to stand on your own ground with what you are doing. Pointing out another cache that got away with it or something along those lines is not always the best way to go. I would never do that as what if they agree with you and archive or disable the other cache. It just can look bad.

I had this come up a while back at work. Our big box truck was left unlocked and my manager said I was the last one to use it. My regional manager was down in town and was very upset with me about it and I knew I didn't leave it unlocked. I mentioned it to one of my co-workers who said oops I moved it to take something out of the back yesterday and must have left it unlocked. A part of me wanted to go tell the regional manager that it was not me but I think doing so would have made me look worse. Oh well he thinks I left it unlocked but it is probably better then him thinking I can't take that criticism and am going to try and blame someone else.

Then last week my morning radio show was talking about stuff never to tell your boss. One of them was to never try and blame someone else for something as it will make you appear weak. I think I made the right decision and that regional manager still wants to make me manager of my branch. I don't want to be manager but leaving the truck unlocked didn't change his mind but maybe me trying to say I was not the one would have.

This has nothing to do with this thread really but just thought I would throw it out there.

 

Just a thought that maybe the reviewer seen your message about the other cache and they didn't want to get involved in all that. That is why the crickets. If you had brought up other reasons why it should be allowed maybe they might have considered it more.

Edited by WarNinjas
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Being a PAYING customer does not mean you've purchased the right to break a listing guideline or to sway a close judgment call in your favor. To the contrary, Geocaching HQ and the Volunteer Cache Reviewers do not consider a cache owner's premium membership status as a factor in reviewing caches or deciding appeals.

 

Turning down an Appeal is not done in order to appease the "free laborers" who review caches. To the contrary, Geocaching HQ and the Volunteer Cache Reviewers are aligned together in hoping to find a way to make a cache publishable. As several reviewers have posted, we do not mind being appealed or overruled, because we want to see caches get published and we want to do a good job in applying the guidelines.

 

There are, in fact, examples of Geocaching HQ saying "no" to a Volunteer Cache Reviewer's decision that have led to or contributed to that Volunteer's decision to resign/retire.

 

I find it unusual that a reviewer would take it personally enough to quit, and have no idea why such a decision could affect them to that extent. Everyone makes mistakes, and if they don't believe that they do, they certainly should not be a reviewer. Likely the cache owner has much more vested time and energy in it than they do.

Link to comment

1. Appeals are handled by paid staff ("Lackeys") at Geocaching HQ, not by volunteers. When you appeal you are not just asking a second volunteer for their opinion; you are going to headquarters.

 

Yes, I messed that up. The email reply came from a "Community and Volunteer Support Coordinator", not a volunteer.

 

An employee of Groundspeak did not want to go against the volunteer reviewers decision, nor did the employee offer the courtesy of a reply to my follow up questions.

 

2. No cache serves as precedent for any other. Each cache listing is unique, and reviewers are empowered to exercise their judgment. Some reviewers come out on different sides of the same line. And, many reviewers are dogs.

 

That's understood. Each reviewer will have their own subjective opinion. As far as this discussion goes, my beef isn't with the reviewer. It's with "HQ".

 

They (the paid employee) made a decision on the matter.That's fine, I accept it. But now that they have made a ruling that something is in violation of their Terms Of Use, why is it selectively applied? Has the wind changed direction or something? My belief is that rules or 'guidelines' are applied arbitrarily and inconsistently, and when this occurs the player is just S.O.L.

 

3. Think of it this way: did you ever get a speeding ticket when it seemed like everyone else on the highway was going the same speed or even faster? Try telling the cop that it's inappropriate for him to ticket you while letting other speeders drive on down the highway. Odds are, this argument will not make him rip up the ticket.

 

But does it justify selective enforcement?

Link to comment

Link for reference:

 

Hiding Overview

 

Relevant text:

 

...you might have a cause that is near and dear to your heart. There are lots of platforms that you can use to get the word out about your important cause, but Geocache pages are not an appropriate platform for an agenda. We have to be fair to everyone about this too, and if we let people promote a worthy cause, we have to let people promote some that may not be so nice. Besides, they are not what geocaching is about ...

Link to comment

Ok, so to recap: of those who have actually described their experience of appealing a cache that was initially rejected by a reviewer, 3 of 9 caches were approved and published, so 33%. Apparently no official stats kept. Anyone else have an appeals history they would care to share?

edexter

Link to comment

Each reviewer will have their own subjective opinion. As far as this discussion goes, my beef isn't with the reviewer. It's with "HQ".

 

They (the paid employee) made a decision on the matter.That's fine, I accept it. But now that they have made a ruling that something is in violation of their Terms Of Use, why is it selectively applied?

This part of JASTA 11's post raises a question in my mind, that maybe Keystone (or any other reviewer following this discussion) can answer.

 

After an appeal has been ruled on, is any clarification/guidance disseminated to the reviewer community as a whole, or is it just to the originating reviewer? One would hope that the guidance would be shared with all reviewers (maybe in the magical, mystical, special reviewer forum), but the apparent lack of consistency in some areas seems to indicate that this might not be happening. As a reviewer, how often are you contacted by HQ with unsolicited guideline guidance?

 

If it were me running things, I'd be sending out notices similar to airworthiness directives whenever a guideline needed to be clarified, so all parties that need to know are notified.

Link to comment

After an appeal has been ruled on, is any clarification/guidance disseminated to the reviewer community as a whole, or is it just to the originating reviewer? One would hope that the guidance would be shared with all reviewers (maybe in the magical, mystical, special reviewer forum), but the apparent lack of consistency in some areas seems to indicate that this might not be happening. As a reviewer, how often are you contacted by HQ with unsolicited guideline guidance?

Contact with "The Lily Pad" is quite regular -- several times per month -- and is not limited to the not-so-secret reviewer forum. Just like not all geocachers visit this forum, not all reviewers visit the reviewers forum. So, Geocaching HQ has added other communication tools in addition to that. I don't have authorization to share details, but if you think about the communication channels at a company having 75 "headquarters employees" and 400 "field workers", you could probably put together a list that would be pretty accurate. The communication channels are vastly improved in recent years, but are still not perfect. For one thing, you need to rely on each volunteer to "read the memo" and follow it. Some volunteers are better at this than others. Remember, many reviewers are dogs.

 

Communications from Geocaching HQ do include regular clarifications on cache listing guideline issues. This includes not only issues highlighted through successful appeals, but also through forum discussions and the natural development of the game. For example, guidance on Near Field Communication ("NFC") elements in puzzle caches was issued when this technique became popular. Not every appeal outcome is highlighted. Little value is added by saying that "someone appealed Sapience Trek's denial of a cache on a railroad bridge that was 350 feet away from an existing cache in the neighboring park, and the appeal was denied." There is also no point in highlighting a one-off misunderstanding unless it turns into a trend across multiple reviewers and territories meriting clarification or an update to the guidelines language and Help Center articles. (Look at the "challenge cache logging requirements" for a current example.)

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

Remember, many reviewers are dogs.

You know, I'm starting to think this may be the root of many problems. Maybe Groundspeak should look into using parrots instead. They're pretty smart. Or chimps. Yeah, chimps. :anibad:

chimp.jpg

 

Thanks for the insight. I understand you not being able to reveal specifics, but I've always wondered what type of communication occurred for this kind of thing.

 

Since many reviewers are dogs, maybe there should be a system of discipline and punishment if reviewers don't read the memos. Like a rap on the nose and a stern "no!". :laughing:

Edited by The A-Team
Link to comment
Since many reviewers are dogs, maybe there should be a system of discipline and punishment if reviewers don't read the memos. Like a rap on the nose and a stern "no!". :laughing:

MissJenn is welcome to do that to me anytime :wub:

 

I hesitate to mention the main subtle communication method of dogs, so I won't.

Same comment as above. :wub: :wub:

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...