Jump to content

Suggestions for Approver Guidelines


hydee

Recommended Posts

The approvers work under an unpublished code of honor much like the geocaching community functions as a group. The community for the most part is a self regulating group. The guidelines they follow has evolved over the last few years, things like is it ok to log your own cache? The approvers function in the same way. The approver team is growing to meet the needs of the community. Groundspeak works closely with them as a group, but in many cases the community may not know them as well.

 

It has become apparent that publishing the unwritten guidelines that govern this group may be helpful for the community.

 

This is a thread dedicated to constructive suggestions. Please only post suggestions that directly address these guidelines. Only posts of this type will remain. This is not a thread to discuss specific approvers or specific actions. Those comments and concerns should be emailed directly to Groundspeak. approvers@Groundspeak.com

 

Please feel free to post your suggestions; all suggestions will be taken into consideration.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

Link to comment

Hydee,

The post is a bit confusing as it seems to say that there are already guidelines but please suggest some guidelines. Maybe list the current guidelines they follow?

 

Suggestion: On our recent vacation we noticed that Co Admin posts a note on cache pages saying they are approved. It was kinda nice to be able to see who approved the cache even though we weren't the owners or logged in. I just thought it was cool.

Maybe other approvers could do that as well so everyone would be able to tell who had approved what cache in case a question comes up about the cache. Kinda like knowing who to contact, IE, CO Admin approved the cache. The owner goes missing, folks can contact Co Admin to tell him there is a problem with that cache and he can look into it since it would be within his coverage area. Unless he was covering someone else's area while they were out caching.

Not necessary, but a useful idea for making contacting an approver easy since their note will be right there...

-Jennifer

 

Age does not bring wisdom, but it does give perspective.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jamethiel:

It was kinda nice to be able to see who approved the cache even though we weren't the owners or logged in. I just thought it was cool.


 

I think at the bottom of every cache page is the name of the approver and a link to their email or profile (I've never had a need for it yet).

 

I'd like to see a time frame attached to cache approval. Not so much to speed things up, but it does seem like we get alot of posts on the forum of the nature, "submitted my cache/ not approved yet", type of thing. Maybe a place on the cache description to show where it is in the line up of things, or an automated note saying that it's been recieved by such and such an approver.

 

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

Link to comment

Suggestion:

 

Approvers should not be able to log First-To-Finds on caches in their approval area, regardless of whether they were the approver or not.

 

Suggestion:

 

Approvers should not be able to "enhance" the cache placement rules set by GC. Example: increasing the .1 mile (160m) minimum distance between caches to some arbitrary value they feel is more appropriate.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamethiel:

It was kinda nice to be able to see who approved the cache even though we weren't the owners or logged in. I just thought it was cool.


 

I think at the bottom of every cache page is the name of the approver and a link to their email or profile (I've never had a need for it yet).

 

I'd like to see a time frame attached to cache approval. Not so much to speed things up, but it does seem like we get a lto of posts on the forum of the nature, "submitted my cache/ not approved yet", type of thing. Maybe a place on the cache description to show where it is in the line up of things, or an automated note saying that it's been received by such and such an approver.

 

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.


 

Only the owner of the cache can currently see who approved it. This is thread is about guidelines for approvers not changes to the caches pages. Lets try to stay on topic here.

Thanks

CO Admin

 

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

tongue.gif The Frog is my friend big_smile.gif

Link to comment

Aha as I was replying in another thread this one seemed to slip in here...

 

I think for one approvers need to be given either a mandate to stop the tunnel vision on caches they approve and direct them to approve caches that meet the guidelines and/or when the cache is questionable be able to make a determination based on the primary factors for geocaching.

 

Those factors I would suggest are :Safety, Fun, and Legal.

 

If the cache supports these goals (and more as suggested) then it should no longer be a tunnel view processing of caches.

 

To assist that cachers should be regionally connected to the areas they approve. How does an approver in Chicago really make some one in LA feel when they disapprove a cache that was safe,fun and legal but may be not easily clasified in the "Traditional" cache category.

 

[portion deleted as negitive comments which was considered off topic as it stated clearly what was on our minds...anyway if you want to know what was said email me.]or are they going to help keep this game alive and evolving while maintaining all the spirit of the game from day 1.

 

The other alternative is to simply change policies in general to say "Traditional Only, do this or go away."

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

 

[This message was Swept under the rug aka edited by CO Admin on October 21, 2003 at 01:02 PM.]

 

[This message was Sewpt under the rug aka edited by CO Admin on October 21, 2003 at 01:04 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by Bear & Ducky on October 21, 2003 at 02:15 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by Bear & Ducky on October 21, 2003 at 02:33 PM.]

Link to comment

I understand the suggestion, but I agree with CoAdmin that would be a change to the cache pages. Logging a note on every cache page would create multiple unnecessary logs in the system; most of the approvers have thousands of logs in the system. But making it more widely know which approver works in an area might help.

 

Please keep the constructive suggestions coming.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

Link to comment

quote:
I think for one approvers need to be given either a mandate to stop the tunnel vision on caches they approve and direct them to approve caches that meet the guidelines and/or when the cache is questionable be able to make a determination based on the primary factors for geocaching.

 

Those factors I would suggest are :Safety, Fun, and Legal.


 

A guideline they already follow. icon_smile.gif This is a conversation we have as a group often. As a team the approvers strive to fairly interpret the guidelines in each situation.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

Link to comment

quote:
Approvers should not be able to log First-To-Finds on caches in their approval area

But in anonymity, they can anyway. (It has happened on one of my caches.)

 

Besides, who cares?

 

quote:
...there are already guidelines...Maybe list the current guidelines...


 

Now, that's a good suggestion.

 

bad_boy_a.gif

 

 

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

 

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

 

.

Link to comment

How about an approver for each state? Western states are so large that it would be difficult for an admin to meet a ranger/land manager from a different state. It isn't such a big deal in the New England area as states are smaller. Approvers there could more easily cover 2 or 3 states.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

Link to comment

Many states have their own approver or a few approvers as is. Some approvers cover multiple states.

 

A state that has a large population of active cache hiders may need multiple approvers. Some states have 2 or 3 cache submissions a week. We add approvers to areas where there is a need.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sept1c_tank:

quote:
Approvers should not be able to log First-To-Finds on caches in their approval area

But in anonymity, they can anyway. (It has happened on one of my caches.)

 

Besides, who cares?


 

Some cache-placers in our area include cash or relatively valuable FTF prizes in their caches. If the approver has advance notice of these caches they have an unfair advantage over the rest of the cachers who are looking for these caches.

 

FTF prizes aside, everyone likes to get a FTF and if an approver who is hiding behind their anonymity is snagging the majority of the FTF it is unfair to the others. It is unethical for someone in a position of trust to abuse that trust by hiding behind their other pseudonym to take advantage of that trust.

 

Who cares? Obviously I care or I wouldn't have brought the matter up. If my opinion is worthless, then there are others in our area who care, too, as it has been discussed in private many times.

 

Good day.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:

Suggestion:

Approvers should not be able to log First-To-Finds on caches in their approval area, regardless of whether they were the approver or not.


We already operate on a time-based prohibition. We wait until a cache has been approved at least some amount of time. In NorCal, most new caches have a first find in 2-4 hours (including in the middle of the night!) and 5 finds in 12 hours, so if a cache is conveniently close to me, I wait at least 8 hours before I'll go after it. Since I started reviewing 7 months ago, I have attempted 5 FTFs and succeeded on 2. Hardly anything to worry about.

 

Different reviewers may use a different time-frame, based on typical conditions in their area. I would have no problem with making a uniform policy, but I believe it should stay time-based. There is no reason why we should have to avoid a cache a mile from our home or work for more than a day, just because no one else has gone after it yet.

 

Hemlock

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:

 

Who cares? Obviously I care or I wouldn't have brought the matter up. If my opinion is worthless, then there are others in our area who care, too, as it has been discussed in private many times.

 

Good day.


 

Everyones opinion is considered equally here. no one persons opinion has been considered worthless

 

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

tongue.gif The Frog is my friend big_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
septi1c_tank wrote (in regard to approvers not logging FTFs:

But in anonymity, they can anyway. (It has happened on one of my caches.)

 

Besides, who cares?


I care. In most cases I go out of my way to leave FTFs for those who are new to the activity. If a cache hasn't been picked up after 5 or 6 days of being listed -- then I might go and pick up an FTF. But generally I'll leave the FTF for someone new to the game.

 

I've found a number of FTFs and it's no big deal anymore. I mean come on, after you've found say, 539 hides, it can't really be all that important to have yet another FTF, can it?

 

But how to enforce this ruling? Easy. No more hidden approvers.

 

Let them be recognized by the community for their position. They can be recognized separately from their cache logging identity (mtn-man) by having a second identity for approving with an easily identifiable username -- something like "mtn-man - approver". This way they can still keep their id's separate but not hidden. If they are fair and reasonable, I expect they will garner additional respect from their community, if they are not fair and reasonable, then they shouldn't be an approver.

 

So two rules:

 

1. Approvers can not log First to Finds until a specified time has passed since the cache was posted.

 

2. Approvers must acknowledge to the community who they are.

 

*****

edit: added "until a specified time..."

 

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 21, 2003 at 03:31 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

We already operate on a time-based prohibition. We wait until a cache has been approved at least some amount of time. In NorCal, most new caches have a first find in 2-4 hours (including in the middle of the night!) and 5 finds in 12 hours, so if a cache is conveniently close to me, I wait at least 8 hours before I'll go after it. Since I started reviewing 7 months ago, I have attempted 5 FTFs and succeeded on 2. Hardly anything to worry about.


 

I don't disagree, although I think the time limit should be measured in days and not hours.

 

I am surprised to hear that you already operate on a time-based prohibitition. Since Hydee asked us not to discuss specific approvers or actions, let me just say that it appears that the time limit you've agreed on must be very short. icon_confused.gif

Link to comment

To make this clear, this is not a topic to decide Groundspeaks policy on Approvers. We allow and encourage approver accounts.

 

This is a topic for constructive suggestions for publishing simple guidelines that approvers follow.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

Link to comment

As far as I know, there is no set minimum time. We have each set it for ourselves as we felt was reasonable for our area. However I would not have a problem with a set time for us all to follow.

 

The ''unpublished code of honor'' that hydee mentioned is not only unpublished to you, but also unpublished to the reviewers. It has simply been passed on from one reviewer to another while we sit around the tribal bonfire smoking our peace pipes. I think we would all welcome having The Code etched into this wall of stone.

 

Hemlock

Link to comment

The FTF suggestion will be addressed by Groundspeak when the guidelines are written and published. I am planning to put together a team of Geocachers/Approvers to work on the drafts before publishing them.

 

Please don't let the discussion get caught up on one issue.

 

More suggestions are welcome.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

Link to comment

However they get worded, I would like to see clearly published guidelines about the approval of virtuals and the .1 mile rule, because these are things that people tend to complain the most about.

 

pika waving

 

[This message was edited by carleenp on October 21, 2003 at 02:09 PM.]

Link to comment

Following the Cache Approval Guidelines is another great suggestion of something that we currently follow but would be make a great published approver guideline.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

Link to comment

Rules should be clear and not subject to the differences of viewpoint of each approver. Thus "Coffetable book worthy" may be clear in what the intent is but it's too subjective to enforce fairly across many approvers.

 

This would be a good example of what fits in a cache guidline as what you should do, even if it can't be checked for by an approver.

Link to comment

Perhaps this already addressed in the rules somewhere, but how about caches within a certain distance of multi's. For instance, I have a multi that goes around a lake. To place another cache in the area would probably mean violating the 0.1 rule, although there is lots of room around the lake for an additional cache.

 

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

Link to comment

Oops! My bad. Better correct myself before CO Admin gives me another whach.

 

How about this: Approvers will not divulge cache locations to friends/relatives and any other sundry individuals in order to increase their chances of a FTF.

 

Or for that matter: Will not divulge information relavent to solving a puzzle cache if they have inside knowledge to the solution.

 

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

RK,

 

Those are Cache Listing Guidelines. We are looking for clarity on the code of honor that governs the approvers.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

_I work for the frog_

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!


 

Let me tackle it from another angle. Approvers use guidelines to do their job. They should be percieved as consistant in doing that job. Giving them approval rules that remove as many subjective standards as possible will go will go a long way towards giving them a better reputation for being fair and consistant.

 

In other words stack the deck so its easier for them to do thir job well.

 

They are enforcing the cache listing guidelines after all.

 

You can't really separate the code of honor that approvers live by and the code of honor they are asked to enforce because as you can see in this thread people see them as related.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

RK,

 

Those are Cache Listing Guidelines. We are looking for clarity on the code of honor that governs the approvers.


 

It's the very approvals or disapprovals that has led many to this discussion.

 

I'm not sure you can mutally exclude them when its at the heart of many of the issues.

 

quote:
From a message farther up:

 

To make this clear, this is not a topic to decide Groundspeaks policy on Approvers. We allow and encourage approver accounts.


 

Again how can this be so exclusive to this debate. Someone could point out the policies on approvers lead to the issues were having with those approvers.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

Puzzle caches: this is something that approvers deal with on a regular basis.

 

Since most of the approvers are avid geocachers they don't even want to approve a puzzle cache in their area. They enjoy working the puzzle to solve it with the rest of the community. In most cases they pass it off to one of the other approver so they can enjoy the hunt.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:

Since this is a topic concerning Geocaching.com Approvers - shouldn't this be on the Geocaching.com Board??


 

It'll probably get a wider audience here, so it's maybe a better place for an initial request for suggestions.

 

For my own, I agree with the FTF time limit. 1 or 2 days should be plenty. If FTF are that important to anyone then they are probably checking the listings every day. That should give enough of a headstart over an approver.

 

Other than that I have no suggestions as I haven't really encountered any approval issues yet icon_smile.gif

 

________________________

What is caches precious?

Link to comment

This may seem a bit too far, but the Code of Conduct at my work entails some of the following:

 

1.Unsatisfactory performance or refusal to perform assigned duties.

 

2. Insubordination, including improper conduct toward management.

 

3. Poor attitude, including rudeness, intimidation and threats etc.

 

4. Using profane or derogatory or unethical language.

 

5. Any form of sexual harassment.

 

6. Making or publishing false, visious or malicious statments.

 

7. Violation of geocaching rules.

 

Well.. that's kind of standard stuff in any personell manual.

 

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

Link to comment

RK,

 

I agree with you, that they need the tools to do their job. We are working on the Cache Listing Guidelines, and they should be posted soon.

 

Southdeltan,

 

The purpose of that forum is really for features, bugs...technical issues.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

Approvers use guidelines to do their job. They should be percieved as consistant in doing that job. Giving them approval rules that remove as many subjective standards as possible will go will go a long way towards giving them a better reputation for being fair and consistant.

 

In other words stack the deck so its easier for them to do their job well.


Well said.

 

The code of Honor with approvers or admins is, I think, Very high. To accept a job that often is a lose-lose proposition takes a special person, NO DOUBT.

 

But, that said, when you accept a job as "The cache Police" it has to follow through to all aspects, even when they are out caching themselves.

In 660 caches I have seen I think 3-4 caches too close to RR Tracks, Many caches less than .1 away, (the last one was last Sunday..182' between 2 caches approved 65 days ago) and when those who are in these approval positions find them, there is not a word in the logs about violating this or that particular rule, just the usual pleasantries and the cache continues to exist for over a year.

 

In a way its like parenting. If you are enforcing a rule and your kids push you on it and you don’t follow through, you start losing their respect.

 

 

 

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

There is no reason why we should have to avoid a cache a mile from our home or work for more than a day, just because no one else has gone after it yet.


 

If you would like to rush out and find all of the new caches in your area before the weekly notification e-mail comes around, then let someone else be the approver. This will let people have time to notice a new cache (without having to refresh the search results page every 8 hours to beat you) and time to go out and search for it (say, maybe the next weekend).

 

As soon as it has been found once, you could go find it. If it truly doesn't matter if you are FTF, then this won't be a difficult rule to follow and if caches are found so frequently and expeditiously, this won't be a long time to wait either. If you have to wait 5 days even, don't worry, I'm sure it will still be there on the 6th for you to go get it.

 

I think "Guideline: No FTF for approvers." is fair. Again, you don't have to be an approver.

 

I'll also toss out "Guideline: After denial of a cache, a single response to any follow-up e-mails from the hider is required...within the response (if it will be your last word on the cache) should be a note that any further complaints or appeals should be sent to contact@Groundspeak.com and that they will probably be low on the totem pole of things to deal with".

 

This will probably help keep down some of the "can't believe my cache wasn't approved and nobody will contact me now" posts and ill will.

 

It would provide a short conversation that may satisfy most people and provide a way to appeal to a higher power if the person feels rebuked by a lowly approver...but still warns that the appeal is not too important to GSpeak and they should modify the cache or drop it. This may be something currently happening, but it obviously isn't being presented very well...and often there is never a second response from an approver.

 

Of course, rather than waste my time coming up with great guidelines that are already part of some hidden schematic...it'd be nice to know what are the current "unpublished code"...so we can actually work to better it instead of try to reinvent it...

 

--

 

http://healinghearts.freeservers.com/pandee.html

Link to comment

Another thought...

 

Who should sit in judgement of disputes between the community and an approver should be stated in the policy. Should it be a group of peers? Other approver? Or maybe just Hydee icon_wink.gif I don't know, but it should be stated in the policy.

 

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

The community for the most part is a self regulating group.


And let's keep it like that.

 

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

Groundspeak works closely with them as a group, but in many cases the community may not know them as well.


And that should change. No need for anonymous accounts. The approvers should be respected geocachers in the community. If they aren't then there's obviously a problem, and that should be dealt with as a separate issue (which I hope is happening).

 

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

It has become apparent that publishing the unwritten guidelines that govern this group may be helpful for the community.


Guidelines are fine as they are. But, why makes this into a formal rule thing? 99% of the approvers are not breaking any rules / guidelines. Why enforce this on people who aren't doing anything wrong? The problem would be more adequately dealt with if the problem approvers were dealt with in the appropriate manner by GC.com.

 

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

This is a thread dedicated to constructive suggestions.


Hope mine are considered constructive, and that this message is not deleted. :-)

 

That's my 2c on the matter.

Link to comment

How can we possibly discuss something if we're not allowed to discuss all aspects that pertain to it?

 

It seems that any post that has anything to do with accountablity is being deleted from this discussion.

 

What's the point of guidelines if there is no accountablity?

 

Unless this post is addressed instead of being deleted, this discussion is obviously a foregone conclusion -- and then it's not really a discussion, is it?

 

Speaks volumes about the importance of integrity -- which IS what this discussion is about.

 

*****

Link to comment

As long as your comments follow hydee's original request

quote:
This is a thread dedicated to constructive suggestions. Please only post suggestions that directly address these guidelines. Only posts of this type will remain. This is not a thread to discuss specific approvers or specific actions. Those comments and concerns should be emailed directly to Groundspeak. approvers@Groundspeak.com


you may comment all you like.

 

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

tongue.gif The Frog is my friend big_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
CO Admin wrote:

you may comment all you like.


You need to read that paragraph again.

 

Our posts have not been about specific approvers or specific actions. They are about the question that has been asked and yet they are being censored.

 

*****

Frogs taste like chicken, but fish is better for you.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

It seems that any post that has anything to do with accountablity is being deleted from this discussion.

 

What's the point of guidelines if there is no accountablity?

 


 

Let's not get the cart before the horse. It's hard to establish accountability with out first establishing the guidelines. This thread is about offering suggestions for approver guidelines.

 

For my suggestion. I like the idea of an independant review by other admins on a disputed submission.

 

_________________________________________________________

Don't mind us, we're just looking for tupperware in this bush.

Link to comment

quote:
Team Misguided wrote:

Let's not get the cart before the horse.


It's not. In order to implement, or even design a rule of any kind, there must be a way to make it accountable. There's no point in creating a rule if it is unenforcable.

 

The rules and accountablity go hand in hand.

 

*****

Frogs taste like chicken, but fish is better for you.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:

I'll also toss out "Guideline: After denial of a cache, a single response to any follow-up e-mails from the hider is required...within the response (if it will be your last word on the cache) should be a note that any further complaints or appeals should be sent to contact@Groundspeak.com and that they will probably be low on the totem pole of things to deal with".

 

This will probably help keep down some of the "can't believe my cache wasn't approved and nobody will contact me now" posts and ill will.

 

It would provide a short conversation that may satisfy most people and provide a way to appeal to a higher power if the person feels rebuked by a lowly approver...but still warns that the appeal is not too important to GSpeak and they should modify the cache or drop it. This may be something currently happening, but it obviously isn't being presented very well...and often there is never a second response from an approver.

 

Of course, rather than waste my time coming up with great guidelines that are already part of some hidden schematic...it'd be nice to know what are the current "unpublished code"...so we can actually work to better it instead of try to reinvent it...


One thing that has been a problem in the past is when cachers reply to an archive note. The archive notes come from an email bot. When you reply to the bot, the email doesn't go to anyone.

 

This has been recently addressed. All of those emails are now forwarded to several people. Since I approve far less caches than I have in the past, I volunteered to steer those misdirected emails to the other approvers who archived the given cache, that the misdirected email was sent to, etc. This is only a recent change though. Some people who have not received a reply back may have emailed the bot. It happens pretty often. Hopefully this recent change will help aid in keeping the emails moving along.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

 

Groundspeak works closely with them as a group, but in many cases the community may not know them as well.


 

Yet in another post hydee described the approvers as "avid geocachers." I find it hard to believe that "avid geocachers" would not be "well-known" by the other active members of their geocaching communities. 'Highly-regarded' is an altogether different issue.

 

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

It has become apparent that publishing the unwritten guidelines that govern this group may be helpful for the community.


 

How can those guidelines be "unwritten?" Have they been passed from approver-to-approver solely by word-of-mouth? Well then, no wonder there has been so much inconsistency!

Link to comment

quote:
There is no reason why we should have to avoid a cache a mile from our home or work for more than a day, just because no one else has gone after it yet.


I think a day might be a little short (depends on the area). But otherwise I'm in agreement. Approvers are doing their job as volunteers. Why should they be penalized for it? I don't see any problem with an approver getting FTF on a cache. In my area, caches sometimes go for days without a find, there's no reason it should sit there unfound because of a silly rule. Is it fair to the cache placer who waits anxiously for a log on their new cache when there is a willing cacher (approver) who wants to go find it?

 

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

Link to comment

I agree with RK on the approval thing. I know there are guidelines. I think they should approve/disapprove on the guidelines only. Not on personal judgement. I think this goes under the code of honor as they are not approving properly if they are using their own judgement on some of these things.

 

I think another thing is that approvers should not be debating in the forums as well. The reasons of annonymity that was in question before results a lot from what happens here in the forums. Approvers should not debate and/or refrain from the forums. Thye are human too and tempers will flare and it shows. Resulting in threads being locked with no reason, caches being seeked out and archived, inflammatory remarks and etc. I know they are cachers too, but I think to be an approver they have to give up some of the things as well. Actually I think moderators shouldn't be approvers...

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

My Stats

Found: 70

Hidden: 2

Link to comment

Reminder as to the purpose of this thread:

 

The Volunteers for Groundspeak are doing an excellent job. We are proud of the job they do on a daily basis! The intent of this topic is to address concerns which have been voiced by a vocal minority of this community. This is an attempt to solicit feedback from the community and not, in any way, an indictment of the approvers.

 

This is a time for you to voice your suggestions. If the community would like the topic to remain open for a community discussion then lets move it back in a proper direction. If not, it will be closed.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...