Why doesn't CO have publishing control?

[knowschad]

In that way most cache publication should be kind of unpredictable avoiding the bias that human factor could arise.

Does a great job of introducing lots of programming and complexity for the benefit of FTFs.

And needlessly accuses reviewers of "bias."

Based on context, I'm fairly certain "anpefi" was using "bias" in its statistical sense. Many reviewers publish caches in ways that systematically differ from a random distribution across the full 24 hours. In the case of our reviewer, they publish a disproportionate number of caches between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. That might or might not be a bad thing, but it is a bias.

 

That's a nice way to see it, but given that the entire thread started with a complaint about lazy reviewers and is predicated on improving the system for the benefit of people who play a side game, I'm less inclined to be so charitably pedantic with my own interpretation.

 

Those were to separate posters. The OP used the word "lazy", which he has since edited and publicly apologized for) and it was anpefi that used the term "bias", which you choose to not be charitable to. Besides, both of those posters are new to the forums, so I think that you should try to be a little more charitably pedantic to them. Is that expecting too much?

[+CanadianRockies]

Let me throw a dumb idea about this.

In order to be fair for everyone (including all those involved in FTF races), what about a randomly publication system (after reviewer approval, of course)? I mean, when reviewer set a cache as Ok, it enters into a queue to me published at a ranndomly moment in the following ¿24-48? hours. You should be able to add some restrictions as "not to be published between 10PM-8AM", "no to be published on weekends", ... For those special caches that should be published in a give time (How we like to make this as complex as possible) there could be a flag to be published at that specific time (But i guess that should have a strong reason for that).

In that way most cache publication should be kind of unpredictable avoiding the bias that human factor could arise. It shouldn't be hard to implement it.

Too silly idea?

Does a great job of introducing lots of programming and complexity for the benefit of FTFs.

And needlessly accuses reviewers of "bias."

Based on context, I'm fairly certain "anpefi" was using "bias" in its statistical sense. Many reviewers publish caches in ways that systematically differ from a random distribution across the full 24 hours. In the case of our reviewer, they publish a disproportionate number of caches between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. That might or might not be a bad thing, but it is a bias.

That's a nice way to see it, but given that the entire thread started with a complaint about lazy reviewers and is predicated on improving the system for the benefit of people who play a side game, I'm less inclined to be so charitably pedantic with my own interpretation.

Given that "anpefi" wasn't the original poster, I'm not inclined to interpret their comment in a nasty manner.

 

Try reading their comment in context. They propose a system that, for the most part, randomly distributes publication times over a 24-hour period. Statistical bias seems like the straightforward intepretation.

[+narcissa]

Try reading their comment in context.

 

The context is the entire thread.

[+GeoBain]

To be honest, yes, too silly. All the time and effort to develop this idea into a workable solution seems like an enormous waste of time and energy on the website, and seriously, we're talking about FTF, which Groundspeak has made abundantly clear they are not going to support.

 

Yet they gave us instant notifications. Just because they don't officially support the FTF side game doesn't mean they are unwilling to introduce tools that make it more fun and interesting.

[knowschad]

Try reading their comment in context.

 

The context is the entire thread.

 

Not when you chose to parse one word out of a post and interpret it in a bad light. The entire thread wasn't written by that one poster.

[+GeoBain]

I think cache owners should be able to publish their own caches, after reviewer approval. Who hasn't experienced a reviewer who publishes 30 new caches on a Sunday morning?

What if a CO wants to publish his cache in the middle of the night for an interesting FTF race? Or what if a CO wants to publish his cache at 5:30 pm to give more people a chance for the FTF?

I know you can just communicate with the reviewer to get caches published at preferred times. But why not make it easier and once the reviewer approves the cache, the CO can just choose to publish it whenever he/she wants?

Just an idea. Thanks so much to all the reviewers out there - I know you're freely giving your time for the love of the game.

 

My opinion is, whilst this is a reasonable suggestion, it would require some software development and it also makes the process more complex, adding a new state (cache approved but not yet published by owner). How long can a cache stay in such a state?

 

I.e it costs something to do this, it adds complexity, and I don't think is needed.

 

The cool thing is that the OP's suggestion has prompted the suggestion for the reviewers to be given a scheduler for publications which I think does make sense and is very doable.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Sapper 1-6:

 

I think you owe the Reviewers an apology!

 

I am hoping that when you called the reviewer lazy it was just an unfortunate choice of words on your part. And if you really feel that way, I suggest you become a volunteer for nothing, and work hard hours without pay and for the benefit of others.

 

This is just my opinion but your message was lost in the """arrogance of your grammar""" In today’s language """"this was an epic fail!."""

 

Colorado Bear

Jay

W0GBS

Volunteer

 

pot and kettle ...

 

Dear god you murdered that and then you rushed it to a vet and then hammered it to death all over again. Sort of fixed it for you - what's left of it.

 

That aside it would be a good idea if the cache were reviewed by a reviewer and then cleared for publication by the CO.

 

The facility already exists in the form of enable/disable by the CO. Once reviewed and cleared by the reviewer it could go into a enable/disable mode which is actionable by the CO. Reviewers have a que system where they stack them and hit publish so just leave the publish step to the CO.

 

Yes yes he should not have used the word lazy but his offence is not aimed at a specific person so is not personal to anyone specifically.

 

However your personal attack "suggest you get off your lazy behind" is against this very forums rules and is bullying. And yet magically is ignored by all and sundry. Glossed clean over. How thoroughly disappointing ...

 

Edited to be specific.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Seaglass Pirates

[+Touchstone]

To be honest, yes, too silly. All the time and effort to develop this idea into a workable solution seems like an enormous waste of time and energy on the website, and seriously, we're talking about FTF, which Groundspeak has made abundantly clear they are not going to support.

 

Yet they gave us instant notifications. Just because they don't officially support the FTF side game doesn't mean they are unwilling to introduce tools that make it more fun and interesting.

I've always considered the IN as tools for the Beta-cache Testers

[+NYPaddleCacher]

To be honest, yes, too silly. All the time and effort to develop this idea into a workable solution seems like an enormous waste of time and energy on the website, and seriously, we're talking about FTF, which Groundspeak has made abundantly clear they are not going to support.

 

Yet they gave us instant notifications. Just because they don't officially support the FTF side game doesn't mean they are unwilling to introduce tools that make it more fun and interesting.

 

I'm not into the FTF game but I use instant notifications. I just like to see new caches that have been published in the area so I can decide whether or not I want to find them and a push notification is the easiest way to do that.

 

 

[+dprovan]

Yet they gave us instant notifications. Just because they don't officially support the FTF side game doesn't mean they are unwilling to introduce tools that make it more fun and interesting.

GS gave us notifications. The notifications are timely, but that's just good implementation, not support for FTF. Support for FTF would have had a way to ask for a notification for new caches, but instead you have to ask for a notification of an obscure log type.

 

I suppose a case could be made for GS liking and perhaps even encouraging the FTF game, but I think they've done a good job of keeping it an officially unsupported side game even if they think it's a good idea.

 

The cool thing is that the OP's suggestion has prompted the suggestion for the reviewers to be given a scheduler for publications which I think does make sense and is very doable.

I thought I saw a reviewer once saying they already had a scheduler so they didn't have to set an alarm to get up at 6am to publish caches for some event. If they don't, they certainly should, but I'll leave that up to them to work out with GS.

 

As for the OP, I'd prefer leaving special requests as a manual operation accomplished through notes to the reviewer who is then in a position to decide if the request is unreasonable. I see no reason to implement infrastructure specifically to bypass the reviewer's involvement in the time of publication. While people might like to schedule publication to stack the deck against, say, early risers, the other side of that coin is the ability to schedule the publication to a time that one specific geocacher is known to be busy. That might be fun, but in the wrong hands, it's just one more way to annoy people.

[+jellis]

Too me it would be a scary thought if they didn't have some control of publishing. There would be so many more violations and caches too close together you wouldn't know which ones they were. Though sometimes I don't always agree with them, I think they do the best job they can with what little information they are given by COs. Plus they do have lives too.

 

Well, the OP wasn't looking for total control. They just wanted to be able to push the "publish" button after the cache submission was approved by a reviewer. So, the cache would still have to meet all the guidelines, but the CO could decide when it was published rather than rely on a reviewers personal timetable.

 

For those who are worried about some CO using this as a way to ensure FTF's for their friends or publishing caches when it would inconvenient for cachers they don't like, my opinion is "so what". Let them play their silly games. They already do.

Well what I do is I put a note on the reviewer's note letting them know when I would like it published. Especially like for events or not to enter after curfew for parks.

[anpefi]

Hey I didn't pretend to accuse reviewers of anything.

 

Let me throw a dumb idea about this.

In order to be fair for everyone (including all those involved in FTF races), what about a randomly publication system (after reviewer approval, of course)? I mean, when reviewer set a cache as Ok, it enters into a queue to me published at a ranndomly moment in the following ¿24-48? hours. You should be able to add some restrictions as "not to be published between 10PM-8AM", "no to be published on weekends", ... For those special caches that should be published in a give time (How we like to make this as complex as possible) there could be a flag to be published at that specific time (But i guess that should have a strong reason for that).

In that way most cache publication should be kind of unpredictable avoiding the bias that human factor could arise. It shouldn't be hard to implement it.

Too silly idea?

Does a great job of introducing lots of programming and complexity for the benefit of FTFs.

And needlessly accuses reviewers of "bias."

Based on context, I'm fairly certain "anpefi" was using "bias" in its statistical sense. Many reviewers publish caches in ways that systematically differ from a random distribution across the full 24 hours. In the case of our reviewer, they publish a disproportionate number of caches between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. That might or might not be a bad thing, but it is a bias.

That's a nice way to see it, but given that the entire thread started with a complaint about lazy reviewers and is predicated on improving the system for the benefit of people who play a side game, I'm less inclined to be so charitably pedantic with my own interpretation.

Given that "anpefi" wasn't the original poster, I'm not inclined to interpret their comment in a nasty manner.

 

Try reading their comment in context. They propose a system that, for the most part, randomly distributes publication times over a 24-hour period. Statistical bias seems like the straightforward intepretation.

 

As you must note, English is not my strength.

I used "bias" in the statistical sense that CanadianRockies explained (I apologize, for my work I always tend to think that sense of "bias" is the most obvious). With caches being published by human reviewers I bet that the distribution of publication times is very far from a random distribution, making it somewhat predictable. Thats the statitistical sense of bias, right? I apologize if that was not clear enough.

I have re-read all the thread, where thre true debate is if CO should have publishing control and in my understanding I cannot see why you interpret my comment as an attack. Of course, the entire thread is the context, but i think i gave additional context enough to focus what I mean. Maybe the fault is my limitations with the language. At least there are people that understand what i said. I'll try to do my best the next time to avoid missinterpretations.

 

How would that help FTFers? I see it more as a way to keep FTFers up all night watching their phones.

I said about fairness. Assumming the statistical bias in publication times, I'm pretty sure that such "predictable" trends in publications would favor to some FTFers over others. I mean, if in place the reviewer tend to publish mainly between 7-8am (as someone said before) this would favor to those FTFers that have free mornings. If publication times were truly randomly distributed, FTFers with "normal" works could have the chance to reach some of those new caches. If there are people involved in a FTF competitions they would prefer to equalize the chances to get one for all the people, then getting an FTF would be more worthy. Yes, FTF game isn't official, but I strongly think that such automatition would reduce much of the disputes I see were caused by the FTF races.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Anpefi don't worry. Your English is superior to some who have already posted - your context of the word bias was totally clear.

 

I'm confused where did all this rubbish about FTF come from. Reading back through it was implied that this would favour the FTF gang. Implied. Since then you've all run with it claiming it would favour them and thus be a detriment to the game.

 

What?

 

If a reviewer tends to publish at a specific time - ours sort of does, the previous one did and the one previous to that always did. Tended to publish half a series on the night time at midnight ish and the rest of the series during the next day. Not "always" but generally. While this in no way makes them lazy it does make the process predictable to a degree. For instance when we saw a series being published on the evening we didn't rush out to get FTF on the series (some series were not numbered, they were named so you had no idea more were there coming), we would wait for a day so we used one lot of fuel to get to the locatin instead of two going back to get the ones we missed. Some however were playing a side game of a FTF for the month etc. others like having large numbers of FTF's. So what.

 

Whatever, it was specifically as a consequence of the roughly predictable nature of the publishing times that we altered our behaviour with regard to rushing out to get FTF on a series. We changed from going to get it to setting a distance that we would be prepared to travel to get FTF. But a side game wasn't the focus as such, spending two lots of fuel was the main focus - or rather avoiding it.

 

Yes you can ask your reviewer to publish a series all in one go at a certain time so that people don't suffer the two lots of fuel scenario but it's down to their good will and available time.

 

But surely you can see that by giving the publishing function to the CO of a series or even a single cache it will:

 

Release the reviewer from extra work and effort.

Randomise publishing times incredibly so the FTF mafia will have no idea when a cache is bing published

Reduce traffic on the servers (I know when ours is in for review we are refreshing constantly to see if it's live)

Open the opertunity for FTF to a wider audience

 

These are facts.

 

Implying that some will give their mates the heads up to be at a certain location is hilarious. While this happens anyway (we've had a prefound cache situation that caused all hell to break loose) it's rare and caused those concerned lots of hassle. The logistics of setting this up rely on one thing - human nature. People like surprises the thrill of the chase and competitiveness is key. This would be in conflict with setting a mate up for a FTF. If anyone were to set their mates up for a FTF word would soon get round and the mocking would begin.

 

Blimey if you think the cons outway the pros well imo it's just being bloody minded about it.

 

Edit:

 

Besides if the FTF game is so unpallatable to some and it's such a niché detrimental aspect ... why on proprietary log sheets does it say FTF: Name: Date : Time: at the top. I think categorising FTF as a side game is idiotic when clearly it is an unavoidable outcome. Someone has to be FTF. It's inevitable.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Seaglass Pirates

[Pup Patrol]

I'm confused where did all this rubbish about FTF come from. Reading back through it was implied that this would favour the FTF gang. Implied. Since then you've all run with it claiming it would favour them and thus be a detriment to the game.

 

The OP:

 

I think cache owners should be able to publish their own caches, after reviewer approval. Who hasn't experienced a reviewer who publishes 30 new caches on a Sunday morning?

 

What if a CO wants to publish his cache in the middle of the night for an interesting FTF race? Or what if a CO wants to publish his cache at 5:30 pm to give more people a chance for the FTF?

 

I know you can just communicate with the reviewer to get caches published at preferred times. But why not make it easier and once the reviewer approves the cache, the CO can just choose to publish it whenever he/she wants?

Just an idea. Thanks so much to all the reviewers out there - I know you're freely giving your time for the love of the game.

 

B.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

The context of that statement was as an example and was qualified by the following paragraph. It was implied as a potential use, not as a specific or singular reason to do it. Other outcomes of doing it are obvious also implied but not mentioned by the OP.

 

Edit - to qualify my claim and exain further sorry the OP begins with "what if". Therefore this reflects an example. Sorry should have explained why it was implication of use rather than anything else.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Seaglass Pirates

[knowschad]

How would that help FTFers? I see it more as a way to keep FTFers up all night watching their phones.

I said about fairness. Assumming the statistical bias in publication times, I'm pretty sure that such "predictable" trends in publications would favor to some FTFers over others. I mean, if in place the reviewer tend to publish mainly between 7-8am (as someone said before) this would favor to those FTFers that have free mornings. If publication times were truly randomly distributed, FTFers with "normal" works could have the chance to reach some of those new caches. If there are people involved in a FTF competitions they would prefer to equalize the chances to get one for all the people, then getting an FTF would be more worthy. Yes, FTF game isn't official, but I strongly think that such automatition would reduce much of the disputes I see were caused by the FTF races.

 

Good explanation. Thanks, I see what you mean, now. I personally don't care for any of the competitive aspects of geocaching, including this FTF race, but I would be stupid to try to deny that it exists, and that my dislike of it will change anything for those people.

 

I did not miss that Groundspeak in some of their promotional material even reference the FTF race in a positive light. I wish that they wouldn't promote it like that, but again... what I like has little bearing on reality.

[+narcissa]

I think categorising FTF as a side game is idiotic when clearly it is an unavoidable outcome. Someone has to be FTF. It's inevitable.

 

The simple fact that one person or group is first to find a new cache is inevitable.

 

Turning it into a competitive game with rules and complaints about fairness is not inevitable.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

You just drift off into ...

[+jellis]

OP here. Calling reviewers lazy was definitely a poor word choice. I legitimately am very grateful for all reviewers who give their time freely for the game we love.

I still stick by the main point of my post that I think it would be neat to give COs control of publishing their caches after reviewer approval. The reviewer could determine if the cache is worthy of CO publishing (not in a cemetery, etc).

And to the point that Groundspeak shouldn't encourage the FTF race, why not? In my limited opinion (I have only be caching for a few months), it seems that geocaching offers something for everybody. Some cachers love puzzle caches, some love multis, some love caches that bring you to beautiful natural settings, some love urban caches. What if an avid hiking cacher said that urban caches, or even just LPCs, should not be allowed bc he didn't like that aspect of caching? The reason geocaching is so awesome is bc it offers something for everyone! It seems to me that FTF races, whether Groundspeak wanted this to be the case or not, have become a HUGE part of the game. My suggestion is just one simple suggestion on how to allow those who appreciate this aspect of the game to make it even more enjoyable.

Thanks again to every reviewer out there- without you the game would be Munzee (totally different and in my opinion, dumbed down). Once again it wasn't and isn't my intent to discredit reviewers for their hard work; rather, I'm trying to make their lives easier by adding a new optional CO publishing feature.

As I mentioned before still a scary thought. You maybe sincere about it but I have seen some cachers who have changed their cache pages after it was published. Hate to think what they can do before they publish it.

Edited April 9, 2015 by jellis

[Pup Patrol]

OP here. Calling reviewers lazy was definitely a poor word choice. I legitimately am very grateful for all reviewers who give their time freely for the game we love.

I still stick by the main point of my post that I think it would be neat to give COs control of publishing their caches after reviewer approval. The reviewer could determine if the cache is worthy of CO publishing (not in a cemetery, etc).

And to the point that Groundspeak shouldn't encourage the FTF race, why not? In my limited opinion (I have only be caching for a few months), it seems that geocaching offers something for everybody. Some cachers love puzzle caches, some love multis, some love caches that bring you to beautiful natural settings, some love urban caches. What if an avid hiking cacher said that urban caches, or even just LPCs, should not be allowed bc he didn't like that aspect of caching? The reason geocaching is so awesome is bc it offers something for everyone! It seems to me that FTF races, whether Groundspeak wanted this to be the case or not, have become a HUGE part of the game. My suggestion is just one simple suggestion on how to allow those who appreciate this aspect of the game to make it even more enjoyable.

Thanks again to every reviewer out there- without you the game would be Munzee (totally different and in my opinion, dumbed down). Once again it wasn't and isn't my intent to discredit reviewers for their hard work; rather, I'm trying to make their lives easier by adding a new optional CO publishing feature.

 

So my interpretation of the OP's idea, that this suggestion is primarily for the FTF game, was correct.

 

As to the problem of cache owners changing the cache page, I don't see what difference it makes whether the page gets changed after publication, which happens now, or whether it gets changed between the time the Reviewer approves it and the cache owner hits the "go live" button, if the OP suggestion was implemented. What the OP is suggesting wouldn't change that part of the game at all.

 

 

B.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+Seaglass Pirates]

To be pedantic no lol. Now he is qualifying a "general" statement in his first post, with a more specific one in your example, because people have attacked that particular part of his original post and he has been forced to qualify his remarks with regard to the ftf point. As well as the lazy comment obviously.

 

The only way that it would become a specific part of the game, or a specific side game, if his suggestion was implemented, would be if he announced that he would be publishing several caches at a particular hour on a particular day. But wait ... that happens on facebook anyway ... will continue to happen on facebook anyway until facebook crumbles into dust ... therefore nothing will change. It certainly will not be a detriment. The only detriment will be to the oil reserves really. Those who crave ftf have notifications anyway for new caches published in a certain area so meh ... let him have it.

 

As to the problem of cache owners changing the cache page, I don't see what difference it makes whether the page gets changed after publication, which happens now, or whether it gets changed between the time the Reviewer approves it and the cache owner hits the "go live" button, if the OP suggestion was implemented. What the OP is suggesting wouldn't change that part of the game at all.

 

Could not agree more. The community is self regulating to a degree. If a page is changed and it causes problems it will be reported. TB hotels ... *shakes head* to name one aspect. Run fine unless someone starts sending abusive emails about leaving a certain number. Then suddenly they are rewriting their cache pages or archive it. Others have the rule ... say nothing and fume quietly ... carry on for years. This would change nothing apart from remove (I assume) some of the workload.

[+narcissa]

Those who crave ftf have notifications anyway for new caches published in a certain area so meh ... let him have it.

 

You mean: so meh ... devote resources into redesigning the way geocaches are published in order to accommodate a side game.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Those who crave ftf have notifications anyway for new caches published in a certain area so meh ... let him have it.

 

You mean: so meh ... devote resources into redesigning the way geocaches are published in order to accommodate a side game.

 

You know you could just get a job as a ventriloquist if you want to put words in people's mouths ...

[+Team Microdot]

Those who crave ftf have notifications anyway for new caches published in a certain area so meh ... let him have it.

 

You mean: so meh ... devote resources into redesigning the way geocaches are published in order to accommodate a side game.

 

You know you could just get a job as a ventriloquist if you want to put words in people's mouths ...

 

Careful - you'll end up on the list of posters whose posts don't deserve to be dignified with a response

[+jellis]

OP here. Calling reviewers lazy was definitely a poor word choice. I legitimately am very grateful for all reviewers who give their time freely for the game we love.

I still stick by the main point of my post that I think it would be neat to give COs control of publishing their caches after reviewer approval. The reviewer could determine if the cache is worthy of CO publishing (not in a cemetery, etc).

And to the point that Groundspeak shouldn't encourage the FTF race, why not? In my limited opinion (I have only be caching for a few months), it seems that geocaching offers something for everybody. Some cachers love puzzle caches, some love multis, some love caches that bring you to beautiful natural settings, some love urban caches. What if an avid hiking cacher said that urban caches, or even just LPCs, should not be allowed bc he didn't like that aspect of caching? The reason geocaching is so awesome is bc it offers something for everyone! It seems to me that FTF races, whether Groundspeak wanted this to be the case or not, have become a HUGE part of the game. My suggestion is just one simple suggestion on how to allow those who appreciate this aspect of the game to make it even more enjoyable.

Thanks again to every reviewer out there- without you the game would be Munzee (totally different and in my opinion, dumbed down). Once again it wasn't and isn't my intent to discredit reviewers for their hard work; rather, I'm trying to make their lives easier by adding a new optional CO publishing feature.

 

So my interpretation of the OP's idea, that this suggestion is primarily for the FTF game, was correct.

 

As to the problem of cache owners changing the cache page, I don't see what difference it makes whether the page gets changed after publication, which happens now, or whether it gets changed between the time the Reviewer approves it and the cache owner hits the "go live" button, if the OP suggestion was implemented. What the OP is suggesting wouldn't change that part of the game at all.

 

 

B.

If this was true it would be like they only want to publish when he/she wants so only certain cachers would be FTF. That's possibly one of the reasons GC doesn't want to recognize FTF as part of the game.

Edited April 10, 2015 by jellis

[+jellis]

As to the problem of cache owners changing the cache page, I don't see what difference it makes whether the page gets changed after publication, which happens now, or whether it gets changed between the time the Reviewer approves it and the cache owner hits the "go live" button, if the OP suggestion was implemented. What the OP is suggesting wouldn't change that part of the game at all.

 

 

B.

This may have to be confirmed by a reviewer, but lets say the reviewer says it's okay and then the CO changes the coords to be closer to another cache. The reviewer may not notice the change because they trusted the CO to leave everything as he approved it. Usually if you move it after it gets published you can't over a certain distance because it won't allow you after it was published. You would have to go through a reviewer to change it and they would see the proximity problem.

[Pup Patrol]

As to the problem of cache owners changing the cache page, I don't see what difference it makes whether the page gets changed after publication, which happens now, or whether it gets changed between the time the Reviewer approves it and the cache owner hits the "go live" button, if the OP suggestion was implemented. What the OP is suggesting wouldn't change that part of the game at all.

 

B.

This may have to be confirmed by a reviewer, but lets say the reviewer says it's okay and then the CO changes the coords to be closer to another cache. The reviewer may not notice the change because they trusted the CO to leave everything as he approved it. Usually if you move it after it gets published you can't over a certain distance because it won't allow you after it was published. You would have to go through a reviewer to change it and they would see the proximity problem.

 

You know that already happens with the present system, right?

 

Instead of one big leap, they change the coordinates by the increments allowed, until the cache has moved to where they originally wanted it. Any change in coordinates under 528 feet can be done by the cache owner. That's one heck of a big change to allow.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=76

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=61

 

Cache owners have found all kinds of ways to game the system. Being allowed to choose when to publish a cache after Reviewer approval wouldn't make any difference to the ways that cache owners get around the Guidelines already.

 

The OP said in the very first post:

 

I think cache owners should be able to publish their own caches, after reviewer approval. Who hasn't experienced a reviewer who publishes 30 new caches on a Sunday morning?

 

What if a CO wants to publish his cache in the middle of the night for an interesting FTF race? Or what if a CO wants to publish his cache at 5:30 pm to give more people a chance for the FTF?

 

 

 

B.

[+jellis]

As to the problem of cache owners changing the cache page, I don't see what difference it makes whether the page gets changed after publication, which happens now, or whether it gets changed between the time the Reviewer approves it and the cache owner hits the "go live" button, if the OP suggestion was implemented. What the OP is suggesting wouldn't change that part of the game at all.

 

B.

This may have to be confirmed by a reviewer, but lets say the reviewer says it's okay and then the CO changes the coords to be closer to another cache. The reviewer may not notice the change because they trusted the CO to leave everything as he approved it. Usually if you move it after it gets published you can't over a certain distance because it won't allow you after it was published. You would have to go through a reviewer to change it and they would see the proximity problem.

 

You know that already happens with the present system, right?

 

Instead of one big leap, they change the coordinates by the increments allowed, until the cache has moved to where they originally wanted it. Any change in coordinates under 528 feet can be done by the cache owner. That's one heck of a big change to allow.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=76

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=61

 

Cache owners have found all kinds of ways to game the system. Being allowed to choose when to publish a cache after Reviewer approval wouldn't make any difference to the ways that cache owners get around the Guidelines already.

 

The OP said in the very first post:

 

I think cache owners should be able to publish their own caches, after reviewer approval. Who hasn't experienced a reviewer who publishes 30 new caches on a Sunday morning?

 

What if a CO wants to publish his cache in the middle of the night for an interesting FTF race? Or what if a CO wants to publish his cache at 5:30 pm to give more people a chance for the FTF?

 

 

 

B.

and I think I already answered that one. Post a note to the reviewer when you want the cache published. Doesn't always work but it's worked most of the time in our area cause we have 4 reviewers.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

So to summerise the main arguments against are:

 

Caches may creep or move position cache pages changed - already happens. Happened here yesterday.

 

Cachers may MAY use it to offer friends FTF or it MAY develope a side game - already happens. I was offered FTF on a 5/5 a month ago. No I didnt. I can't see how it would entice any more people to go for FTF. Those that are inclined already do. Lay in wait with notifications on and push notification on. I know, we've done it ourselves. It worked. We did. Now it doesn't because our main rival no longer goes and does it. It's candy from a baby now. Competitiveness gone. Possible and it woild be rare but unofficially organising and event for FTF. But aside from that being thwarted at every turn, if it did get through somehow, in all probability it would be a group affair. Here at least we're more or less all friends. Locally I mean.

 

Implied MASSIVE unnessasry use of resources - quite how that is known I am going to say is conjecture and I would ASSUME only, that as it obviously removes a step from what a reviewer does, it reduces their workload.

 

But here's the thing. Aside from the possible truth of the last 'con', there is no difference to how the game is already played. Obviously my opinion is based on my own sphere of experience so therefore limited to that, but I cannot envisage how this would impact on geocaching in a negative way outside of what already occurs.

 

And to be frank the assumption that this would be an in unnnessasry use of resources isn't Narcissa's call to make. That's Geoundspeaks. It's the same as a housewife trying to stop the government arranging something because she thinks it's a waste of resources. She may think it, she may have an opinion on it, she might not even like it, she may even be right, but at the end of the day it will change nothing. It will happen as long as:

 

It pleases or does not displease the majority or,

It reduces input and increases output or,

There is money to be made or saved from it

All of the above.

 

At the end of the day the world is going this way. Less is being down by the provider and more is bing done by the end user and for free. Supermarkets now have you scanning your own shopping for them lol. You even charge your own cards for the stuff. You drive to them. In the Dr's I check myself in now and book my own appointments. At the airport I can check in online! I put my own petrol in my car. I wash my own car and a machine takes my money. A friend removed her own cast because she was told to and I took my own dogs stitches out. You print your own train tickets. I sent some small round metal objects - by printing my own stamps off. I fetch my own food at pizza hut. I open my own bank account by filling in all of the forms myself at home. I process my own road tax. I take my own passport photos. I make my own electricity.

 

The costs do not go down but I am doing more of the work for the services my money used to pay for. So I would suggest that publishing your own caches is not only possible, as history proves, whatever step can be passed on to you, will be, as long as it can be with no legal ramifications to the provider.

[+redsox_mark]

As to the problem of cache owners changing the cache page, I don't see what difference it makes whether the page gets changed after publication, which happens now, or whether it gets changed between the time the Reviewer approves it and the cache owner hits the "go live" button, if the OP suggestion was implemented. What the OP is suggesting wouldn't change that part of the game at all.

 

B.

This may have to be confirmed by a reviewer, but lets say the reviewer says it's okay and then the CO changes the coords to be closer to another cache. The reviewer may not notice the change because they trusted the CO to leave everything as he approved it. Usually if you move it after it gets published you can't over a certain distance because it won't allow you after it was published. You would have to go through a reviewer to change it and they would see the proximity problem.

 

I don't think a reviewer can answer, as this question is about a "state" which doesn't exist today. But I think it is a non-issue.

 

Today, either a cache is unpublished, or it is published. The CO can make changes to an unpublished cache, but the reviewer will see it and can refuse to publish it. Once it is published, the CO can make certain changes and not others.

 

The proposed change creates a new state - "approved but not published". That will require software development. It COULD be implemented to not allow any changes by the CO in that state. But I don't see the point, as they could simply publish it and then make the changes.

 

As I said before for me, the issue is I believe implementing a new state (and the rules which go with it) is likely to be non-trivial, and I don't see a real problem needing solving.

[+redsox_mark]

 

And to be frank the assumption that this would be an in unnnessasry use of resources isn't Narcissa's call to make. That's Geoundspeaks.

 

Yes that is true. The OP (or any of us) can post this on the website forum as a feature request.

 

I think it highly unlikely to be implemented, but that is just my opinion.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

As to the problem of cache owners changing the cache page, I don't see what difference it makes whether the page gets changed after publication, which happens now, or whether it gets changed between the time the Reviewer approves it and the cache owner hits the "go live" button, if the OP suggestion was implemented. What the OP is suggesting wouldn't change that part of the game at all.

 

B.

This may have to be confirmed by a reviewer, but lets say the reviewer says it's okay and then the CO changes the coords to be closer to another cache. The reviewer may not notice the change because they trusted the CO to leave everything as he approved it. Usually if you move it after it gets published you can't over a certain distance because it won't allow you after it was published. You would have to go through a reviewer to change it and they would see the proximity problem.

 

You know that already happens with the present system, right?

 

Instead of one big leap, they change the coordinates by the increments allowed, until the cache has moved to where they originally wanted it. Any change in coordinates under 528 feet can be done by the cache owner. That's one heck of a big change to allow.

 

http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=76

 

http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=61

 

Cache owners have found all kinds of ways to game the system. Being allowed to choose when to publish a cache after Reviewer approval wouldn't make any difference to the ways that cache owners get around the Guidelines already.

 

The OP said in the very first post:

 

I think cache owners should be able to publish their own caches, after reviewer approval. Who hasn't experienced a reviewer who publishes 30 new caches on a Sunday morning?

 

What if a CO wants to publish his cache in the middle of the night for an interesting FTF race? Or what if a CO wants to publish his cache at 5:30 pm to give more people a chance for the FTF?

 

 

 

B.

and I think I already answered that one. Post a note to the reviewer when you want the cache published. Doesn't always work but it's worked most of the time in our area cause we have 4 reviewers.

 

I think someone else may have already suggested this but they way I'd do it would be to include a form element on the cache submission page to request a publishing date/time. The reviewer, whoever that might be, after confirming that the cache meets the guidelines, click an "Approved" button (which would put it on the publishing schedule) or "Publish Now" to override the requested date/time or if the co didn't request one.

 

To prevent abuse, a checksum could be calculated from the content of the of the cache page and compared to a recalculation of a checksum at publish time. If it's different, it would mean the CO attempted to change the cache listing between approval and publish time and it would have to be re-reviewed.

 

[+narcissa]

And to be frank the assumption that this would be an in unnnessasry use of resources isn't Narcissa's call to make.

 

It isn't your call to make either.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

That would handy because although it could also be abused for some other purpose it could be used to:

 

Make sure a series of however many caches were published at the same time. Instead of drifting into the next day. So if someone visits they could complete the series snd not have to go back for a couple or half. At present you need to arrange that with the reviewer. As this requires an email from you and a reply from them perhaps confirming or asking for more details this potentially would also reduce their workload. They wouldn't have to wonder ... now this looks like a loop but they haven't asked me to publish them all at once. Maybe I should ask them etc it's would be clear what you would like. But the checksum I think isn't required. I think they ask you not to change anything when they have reviewed it. I'm sure our reviewer asked that or it was an automated email. This is from memory when we put out church micros for church micro day. They were very quickly sorted by our reviewer for that day.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

And to be frank the assumption that this would be an in unnnessasry use of resources isn't Narcissa's call to make.

 

It isn't your call to make either.

 

I know, but then I didn't get caught out behaving like it was.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

And to be frank the assumption that this would be an in unnnessasry use of resources isn't Narcissa's call to make.

 

It isn't your call to make either.

 

I know, but then I didn't get caught out behaving like it was.

 

Oh come on...this is starting to get petty.

 

The fact is, Groundspeak has a finite amount of development resources and needs to prioritize the work they do such that resources are allocated to areas which have the greatest amount of impact, help improve the game as a whole, or contributes to their bottom line. Narcissa (nor you) aren't making the call on how resources should be allocated. You're both just expressing an opinion for how you'd like to see resources allocated.

 

Personally, I agree with Narcissa. To me, the essence of the GS web site is to provide a mechanism discover cache listings for caches that people will go out and find and to record their experience. Given the state of the new search engine vs. the old search engine *my* preference would be for GS to allocate as many resources as possible to fixing that rather than spending time working on something is still just a side game that a lot of geocachers choose not to play. Frankly, I don't think that the FTF game is good for the game as a whole with all the associated drama it has created and for that reason alone (if it were up to me) I'd prioritize work on developing the proposed feature pretty low.

Edited April 10, 2015 by NYPaddleCacher

[knowschad]

As I mentioned before still a scary thought. You maybe sincere about it but I have seen some cachers who have changed their cache pages after it was published. Hate to think what they can do before they publish it.

Not sure how that would be any different. A cache page changed once the reviewer has vetted it is a cache page changed once the reviewer has vetted it, whether it is prior to publication, or years after that.

[knowschad]

As to the problem of cache owners changing the cache page, I don't see what difference it makes whether the page gets changed after publication, which happens now, or whether it gets changed between the time the Reviewer approves it and the cache owner hits the "go live" button, if the OP suggestion was implemented. What the OP is suggesting wouldn't change that part of the game at all.

Yeah. That.

[knowschad]

Those who crave ftf have notifications anyway for new caches published in a certain area so meh ... let him have it.

 

You mean: so meh ... devote resources into redesigning the way geocaches are published in order to accommodate a side game.

 

Does that really matter? Groundspeak will make that decision, regardless of what we say here.

[knowschad]

And to be frank the assumption that this would be an in unnnessasry use of resources isn't Narcissa's call to make.

 

It isn't your call to make either.

 

In full context:

And to be frank the assumption that this would be an in unnnessasry use of resources isn't Narcissa's call to make. That's Geoundspeaks.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

NYPDpaddlecacher - you are getting confused.

 

The OP suggested that we have the power to publish the cache once it is reviwed. I assume by sitting in a que after the reviewer has done with it. Then we get to press the go button.

 

The OP suggested that such a function could be used with regard to FTF. Could. Not exclusively for it. Not because of it. Not to create it. Not to favour it.

 

Literally that would be 'one' possible CONSEQUENCE of it.

 

So let's not be all "ohhhhh come on this is petty" when for whoever reason some posters are wrangling on that it is the only CONSEQUNECE of it. This could be forgiven. But despite endless posters spelling it out so even a turnip would get it people are still focusing on that aspect as the only outcome of it.

 

Really to continue that single line of thought as the only argument ... Totally agree with you ... tragically petty.

[+narcissa]

And to be frank the assumption that this would be an in unnnessasry use of resources isn't Narcissa's call to make.

 

It isn't your call to make either.

 

I know, but then I didn't get caught out behaving like it was.

 

This is discussion forum. We're all here to discuss opinions on these topics. Your opinion has the same weight as mine.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Oh ok then - no problem.

 

Prove to me that it is a unnessary waste of resources. Go ...

Edited April 10, 2015 by Seaglass Pirates

[+narcissa]

Oh ok then - no problem.

 

Prove to me that it is a unnessary waste of resources. Go ...

 

Perhaps your anger would be better directed at Touchstone.

 

To be honest, yes, too silly. All the time and effort to develop this idea into a workable solution seems like an enormous waste of time and energy on the website, and seriously, we're talking about FTF, which Groundspeak has made abundantly clear they are not going to support.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Oh no not at all. No anger what so ever ... confusion, a little ... but I'm interested to know. You've hinged your stand point on it. If it's a good stand point it's based in understanding of the process to which I'm ignorant. So I'll ask again - please explain the process behind your stand point. An opinion is cast away in the forum and is discussed. A stand point is defended - you've defended, but based what ...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Oh ok then - no problem.

 

Prove to me that it is a unnessary waste of resources. Go ...

 

How about we go back to what she actually wrote?

 

"You mean: so meh ... devote resources into redesigning the way geocaches are published in order to accommodate a side game."

 

You're the one that introduced the idea that it was an "unnessary [sic] waste" of resources.

 

 

[+niraD]

Prove to me that it is a unnessary waste of resources. Go ...

Bug Reports and Feature Discussions > Website > The new search function

[+dprovan]

Prove to me that it is a unnessary waste of resources. Go ...

Well, before we decide whether it's unnecessary, I think someone needs to make the case that it's necessary. So far, the arguments in favor of this feature are insignificant. If we ignore the possibility for FTF games -- which everyone's claiming isn't an important reason to have this feature -- it seems to boil down to making it easier on the reviewer, but I don't see that -- I think it would make more work for the reviewers -- and, besides, I'm not hearing the reviewers ask for it to begin with.

 

At the same time, as a software developer, I can assure you this is a non-trivial feature which will require at least some development, testing, documentation, debugging, and user support (including reading pages and pages of forum posts about how people don't like how it was implemented). I can think of 10 other features that are likely as easy to implement and more interesting and more often requested. Besides, by trying to minimize the effort, I think you're mistakenly thinking that if the effort is small enough, then you don't have to actually justify it.

[+jellis]

As I mentioned before still a scary thought. You maybe sincere about it but I have seen some cachers who have changed their cache pages after it was published. Hate to think what they can do before they publish it.

Not sure how that would be any different. A cache page changed once the reviewer has vetted it is a cache page changed once the reviewer has vetted it, whether it is prior to publication, or years after that.

Guess you missed my other post