Jump to content

Groundspeaks not communicating


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Nicc from KS said:

. . . The lack of maturity . . .

. . . the sycophants . . .

. . .you folks stay in your little microcosm here, and continue to talk down to all the people who make you feel sad, your power trip will never end.

Again, wow!

Maybe I'm missing something, but so far, I've only seen one person in this thread that has been pointing the finger at others, calling names, attaching demeaning labels and making exaggerated accusations, then turn around and project that behavior on everyone else.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Nicc from KS said:

The attitude many of you(who have side tracked this thread) seem to have is that you don't believe reviewers, moderators, and lackeys should not follow the same set of rules imposed on everyone else. This upsets you a great deal. The lack of maturity has shone through in this regard.

 

I see quite a lot of agreement with the OP (including from me) that yes, it would be good if COs were notified when logs were deleted on their caches.

You have clearly had a bad experience with a specific reviewer.   I can't say who is right or wrong, usually it is somewhere in the middle.    Reviewers are enforcing rules, some of their decisions will be unpopular.   My limited experience with reviewers is, as they are generally human, some are very empathetic with their communication, others come across more direct.       It is possible that this reviewer has received feedback from Groundspeak, e.g. asking that they try to be a bit less direct in their approach.     

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

And, ignoring the clear rhetoric, well yes, reviewers and community DO have different rules to abide by. Reviewers have been given additional authority. They have their bosses too, and HQ also has their own rules. We don't all abide by the same rules. There is a hierarchy. You seem to not like the hierarchy and believe we as community have just the same rights and privileges and rules to abide by as reviewers and hq. Sorry, that's simply false.

Now, everyone does have to abide by the rules under which they are bound. If someone breaks a rule they are bound by (even if someone higher up seems to 'break' it though they aren't bound by it), then appropriate action will and should be taken against those for whom the rule applies. Reviewers have faced consequences by HQ for breaking their reviewer rules, as reviewers. Community have faced consequences by HQ and reviewers for breaking rules set for the community (primarily via the TOS).

If you think a reviewer acted inappropriately, then the only course of action is to raise it to their superiors (HQ) and they will deal with the reviewer accordingly. The fact that reviewers in the past have been disciplined, demonstrates that they are not for some reason allowing their reviewers to break rules, to be hypcrites, to, I dunno, have some kind of personal vendetta against you.  If HQ takes no action against a target reviewer, it means HQ feels the reviewer did nothing wrong, and they are under no obligation to continue to battle it out; the gavel has been struck. Even if it means that the accuser feels some kind of "injustice" has happened against them. The latter may be unfortunate, but them's the breaks, here. And you're free to rant and rave, but don't be surprised if you get blocked or banned.  Especially if numerous others (who are not in any way invested) can't see an explanation or defense that remotely supports your position, let alone villifying a private company for acting appropriately.

Going on a rage crusade against HQ, reviewers, and any community member who understands this concept of hierarchy is not good, as Steve Brule says, for your health.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

New requirement: All reviewers and lackeys shall have an official, dedicated thread in order to provide public accountability and sharing of all concerns and praises. For transparency and the good of the community.

That would go over well.....

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

New requirement: All reviewers and lackeys shall have an official, dedicated thread in order to provide public accountability and sharing of all concerns and praises. For transparency and the good of the community.

That would go over well.....

In the private forum for Volunteer Cache Reviewers, we have a thread where we post especially nice thank-you notes.  It is one of the longest-running active threads in the forum, spanning more than fifty pages and receiving more than a quarter of a million page views.  We do appreciate, and share, those private thank-you's!  :)

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

New requirement: All reviewers and lackeys shall have an official, dedicated thread in order to provide public accountability and sharing of all concerns and praises. For transparency and the good of the community.

That would go over well.....

To be honest, I wouldn't mind that at all.  When I've made a mistake, I'm more than happy to admit it, and make any necessary corrections.  When it's on the other party, well...usually the community sorts it out for me.  Kind of a win-win in my opinion.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Nomex said:

To be honest, I wouldn't mind that at all.  When I've made a mistake, I'm more than happy to admit it, and make any necessary corrections.  When it's on the other party, well...usually the community sorts it out for me.  Kind of a win-win in my opinion.

I agree.  Nothing to hide here.  Reviewers have a Code of Conduct we are required to abide by and we are held accountable by Groundspeak.

By the way, the proper channel for raising a concern is through the Help Center at https://www.geocaching.com/help/.  I routinely provide that link to local cachers who complain about how I did something.

Raising an issue through unofficial channels such as Facebook or these Forums only increases the amount of hearsay that has to be sifted through by the folks at Groundspeak when a matter does come to their attention.

 

Edited by Greatland Reviewer
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Nicc from KS said:

The attitude many of you(who have side tracked this thread) seem to have is that you don't believe reviewers, moderators, and lackeys should not follow the same set of rules imposed on everyone else. This upsets you a great deal. The lack of maturity has shone through in this regard.

That's odd, (to me) it didn't appear to be side-tracked at all, and seemed that everyone was pretty-much still on topic until out the blue,  this post below derailed it...

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 5:46 PM, Nicc from KS said:

My experience with Groundspeak has shown their lackeys and administrators to be unprofessional and immature. They apply a broad and inconsistent interpretation of the terms of service and multiple attempts for an explanation or discussion go ignored because they cannot justify their actions. If you are a premium member or a cache owner, you are a stakeholder in geocaching.com. Groundspeak owes us some customer service.

I will not be surprised if this post is deleted. Criticism of Groundspeak staff, reviewers, and moderators get deletion and retaliation.

~Nicc

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 8:19 AM, Nicc from KS said:

If anyone would care to do a little research, check some of the log posts of my archived caches. Perform a facebook search of the reviewer that is mentioned. And then tell me my complaints about this reviewer and Groundspeak are nothing but half truths.

I did "do a little research" and saw that Groundspeak edited quite a few of your archive notes for Terms of Use violations.  The subsequent Note logs you posted also likely violate the Terms of Use (encrypted or not) and may likely be edited when Groundspeak becomes aware of them.

Cache page logs are supposed to be about cachers' experiences while seeking the cache and Cache Owner notes about maintenance and other things that may affect a cache.  A cache page is not supposed to be used as a forum for debate or for posting diatribes against entities or individuals.  As posted above the "Contact Us" link in the Help Center is the way to do that through official channels.

I looked for the alleged Reviewer abuse of authority after perusing twenty of your self-archived cache pages dating back to mid-2016 and didn't see anything resembling "over zealous"  behavior.  One cache page has a Reviewer Note asking "May I request the cache owner verify this cache remains in play?" after a pair of DNF logs that followed a pair of "Found Its" after another cacher threw down a pill bottle replacement.  In the meantime, the "Needs Maintenance" attribute stayed lit up on the cache page for two years.  On another cache page, there is a Reviewer Note asking "Your cache has been marked as needing maintenance. May I ask you - as the cache owner - to confirm the requested maintenance has been performed?" THREE months after the "Needs Maintenance" log was originally posted.  I did not see any Reviewer initiated disabled or archived caches.  All I saw was that of the twenty archived caches I checked, eighteen had no Reviewer Notes and two cache pages had simple queries about cache health after issues were raised by other cachers, which is not too different than how I handle caches that appear to be under the weather in the territories I am accountable for.  Your Reviewer was simply performing one of his many Volunteer duties as assigned.

Edited by Greatland Reviewer
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Back on topic, I'd like to stay informed if there's  an issue with one of our few remaining caches.

 - We pay attention,  responding to logs, not waiting around for a NM.

I can see where a situation may present HQ with something that needs to be done immediately and swiftly, not waiting for someone to "get back to them".

 - But a brief note/mail of  "by the way..."  afterwards would be nice.:)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Oh yes, the topic that rustynails. opened ~ might make a  Feature Request in the Wesite forum, Cache Owner Notification if GeocachingHQ deletes a log from an owned listing.  I envision an email sent to CO, something like this:

[GEO] Owner:GeocachingHQ deleted a log

GeocachingHQ has deleted a log on your cache GCXXXX.

For more information, see this Help Center Article.

 

Link to Help Center article that briefly states something like ~  sometimes GeoachingHQ deletes logs, usually for Terms of Use violations. For privacy reasons, no further information is available. 

 

Had that existed, rustynails. would have known what was up, and could have sent the Help Center link to the cacher who complained to him. Likely the person whose log gets deleted isn't communicating in the best MIss Manners mode. Nice to be forewarned, and to have something to send along.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
On 7/28/2017 at 8:46 AM, redsox_mark said:

You have clearly had a bad experience with a specific reviewer.   I can't say who is right or wrong, usually it is somewhere in the middle.

 

Until NCC actually posts any details of their alleged mistreatment we have nothing to go on here. A stranger making vague claims of mistreatment by authority figures means nothing without details which can be investigated and verified.

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...