Jump to content

Suggestions for Approver Guidelines


hydee

Recommended Posts

quote:
Bloencustoms wrote:

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?


They're not being penalized, they're being courteous by allowing newcomers to experience a First to Find.

 

Consider that approvers are selected because they are experienced cachers -- which would probably indicate that they have already found a few First to Finds. As representatives of the site, they *should* step back and let someone have the experience of finding the cache first.

 

Is that really too much to ask for? Sure would build a lot of respect for those approvers, wouldn't it? -- what with them being sensitive to newcomers and all.

 

*****

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

Link to comment

suggestions:

Common Sense- Don't approve your own caches.

Corrolary- Approving caches placed by family members might not be a good idea either.

 

Common Sense- If you want to fight, do it under your own account so folks don't think it is the approver speaking.

Corrolary- If an approver has personal problems with a certain cacher within their area, they should ask other approvers to approve that person's caches.

 

Common Sense- Respond to e-mails from cachers you have just disapproved. (mtn-man mentions this is fixed)

Corrolary- If a cacher flames you, pass their cache on to another approver and step back out of it.

 

Common Sense- Cache when you have time!

Corrolary- Take vacations and have fun!

-Jennifer

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

The Volunteers for Groundspeak are doing an excellent job.


 

They are, indeed. I think that any formal rules imposed on them will likely make them unhappy, much as the imposition of formal rules has made some of the geocaching community unhappy. I think that such formal guidelines are a bad idea.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

 

They're not being penalized, they're being courteous by allowing newcomers to experience a First to Find.


 

That's than across the board thing for veteran cachers though. Not really specific to approvers. I don't think "courtesy" of this kind should be regulated as part of an official guideline. Regulation of courtesy kind of defeats the purpose of it.

 

Either way, as a relatively new cacher I don't particularly want people to be courteous to me with respect to FTFs. If I get it, I want to get it because I got there first. Not because someone let me icon_wink.gif

 

________________________

What is caches precious?

Link to comment

quote:
Hydee wrote:

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.


No one is saying that the majority of the volunteers at Groundspeak are not doing a good job. We all know that the majority of them are and you should be proud of those approvers and admins.

 

Whether the problems has been voiced by a minority or not does not have a place here -- a problem has been identified and it needs to be corrected. No one here appears to be indicting any approvers -- have any approvers or incidents been brought up here? No. In the end, I think it's obvious that we all just want to see fairness prevail.

 

It is going in a proper direction now -- all aspects of creating a set of guidelines are being explored. I don't know why you think it necessary to threaten with closing this thread when the discussion is on topic.

 

*****

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

Link to comment

Besides, the threat of closing a topic is really without teeth. I'm sure someone can re-post "Suggestions for Approver Guidelines II."

 

Now, whether or not you'd take such suggestions to heart is another matter.

 

Keeping with the topic at hand, however, I would like to suggest approvers, when leaning towards not approving a cache, ask the cache creator if she can show similar caches which have been approved under the same guidelines.

 

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear.

 

I'm striving toward the idea for there to be some effort on similar approval/disapproval of caches worldwide. My thought is that if you can show that a very similar cache to yours has been approved, then that should add weight to your approval (assuming the cache was approved under the same guidelines).

 

Does this make sense? Again, its just a thought, and I may not be explaining the idea well.

 

Pan

 

Fact is that there is nothing out there you can't do,

Yeah, even Santa Claus believes in you...

Floyd of Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem, from "Can You Picture That?"

Link to comment

One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned here is do approvers approve their own caches? They should have to get them approved by another approver. This would be one reason to have the name of the approver on the cache page.There would also need to be some way to check on this to be sure it is followed. It might be a good idea to have several levels, so to speak of approvers (if possible). As they get more experience they would get more area and/or responsibility. There could also be ones who take care of virtuals and locationless caches only.

 

Remember, wherever you go- there you are!

Link to comment

The crux of this discussion is to determine what is acceptable behaviour of approvers.

 

Let's look at that. The first thing that I see is that the approver is a front-line embassador for this site -- and as such his/her conduct must reflect the moral and ethical sense of fair play that the administration of this site see fit (hopefully those standards are high).

 

To establish what those elements of fair play are, requires looking at a number of different scenarios -- some of which have recently been brought into the limelight.

 

Discussions about FTFs, the 10th Mile rule, contacting other cachers politely, usernames being in the open, approvers approving thier own caches, and other concerns -- all play an important role because these are areas where abuse is taking place or abuse is facilitated because of them.

 

I think the question that the administrators of this site need to ask themselves is "How do we want to be represented and what controls do we need to ensure that we are represented that way?"

 

The rest of us need to discuss the areas where abuse is happening and methods of how it can be controlled and eliminated. Hopefully from this, the administrators can use some of the ideas to set up some guidelines.

 

*****

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

Link to comment

Pan - you are suggestion that when an approver says this cache doesn't meet guidlines that they give suggestions (by example) of how to change this cache so it meets guidelines. correct?

 

Approvers have the ability to approve their own caches. Some of them will approve thier own caches some of them choose not to. If a cache doesn't meet guidelines it is reported to the site whether an approver hid it or not. Historically speaking this has been a non issue. I think if they are unfairly approving their own caches it would fall under the abuse of power umbrella, and be dealt with in the same way as any other action.

 

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 hydee:

Pan - you are suggestion that when an approver says this cache doesn't meet guidlines that they give suggestions (by example) of how to change this cache so it meets guidelines. correct?


 

I don't think that's what I'm saying. Although that certainly wouldn't hurt. But, I think most probably do that already.

 

My point was that if a cache of mine is not allowed, I should be able to point to caches very similar to mine that WERE allowed, under the same guidelines, in order to make an argument that mine should be approved.

 

My point is that there should be uniformity across the globe in approval, and one way, I think, to do that, is to make sure you are approving similar caches (and not approving some and denying others (at the whim of the approver)).

 

Pan

 

Fact is that there is nothing out there you can't do,

Yeah, even Santa Claus believes in you...

Floyd of Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem, from "Can You Picture That?"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

Approvers have the ability to approve their own caches. Some of them will approve thier own caches some of them choose not to. If a cache doesn't meet guidelines it is reported to the site whether an approver hid it or not. Historically speaking this has been a non issue. I think if they are unfairly approving their own caches it would fall under the abuse of power umbrella, and be dealt with in the same way as any other action.


 

However, because the approvers are anonymous, we have to assume that when a questionable cache is approved that it was not an approver approving his own cache. Are you suggesting that we should be calling into question any newly approved caches that we, with our limited knowledge of the cache itself, deem to be unacceptable? In other words, second guessing the approvers?

 

____________

Gorak

 

Frogs taste like chicken. Mmmmm...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hydee:

Approvers have the ability to approve their own caches. Some of them will approve thier own caches some of them choose not to. If a cache doesn't meet guidelines it is reported to the site whether an approver hid it or not. Historically speaking this has been a non issue. I think if they are unfairly approving their own caches it would fall under the abuse of power umbrella, and be dealt with in the same way as any other action.


 

I have no issue with approvers approving their own caches. If it is not up to standard it'll be brought to the attention of the admins. This topic has been discussed before.

 

The problem is not approver guidelines. Discussing this serves no point. The original problem needs to be dealt with and the guidelines will sort them themselves out.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:

Are you suggesting that we should be calling into question any newly approved caches that we, with our limited knowledge of the cache itself, deem to be unacceptable? In other words, second guessing the approvers?


Once you have searched for and/or found the cache, and have determined there is a problem with it (buried, on private property, commercial, etc.) then yes, you should report it. When approving a cache, these are things that we cannot tell simply from looking at a map or an aerial photo. We rely on cachers like yourself to help to enforce the guidelines.

 

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Link to comment

Now that I see him active here I should probably mention it. Hemlock has approved a number of my caches and I've had no problems with him at all.

 

It's obvious there's NO problem with the guidelines. Do we need to discuss the guidelines that are so obvious? A lot of the guidelines are common sense and respect to the geocaching community. In the same way they (the approvers) will receive the respect they deserve if the follow common sense.

 

Again, Hemlock has approved a lot of my caches and I have no problems with him.

Link to comment

quote:
My point was that if a cache of mine is not allowed, I should be able to point to caches very similar to mine that WERE allowed, under the same guidelines, in order to make an argument that mine should be approved.


Seems reasonable, but with the rapidly evolving guidelines it might be hard to tell if the caches you are using for comparison are grandfathered. The phrase "under the same gudelines" is important. I totally agree that two new identical caches submitted at the same time (and subject to the same guidelines) should both share the same fate, be it approval or archival.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

Once you have searched for and/or found the cache, and have determined there is a problem with it (buried, on private property, commercial, etc.) then yes, you should report it. When approving a cache, these are things that we cannot tell simply from looking at a map or an aerial photo. We rely on cachers like yourself to help to enforce the guidelines.

 

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer


 

This is how it is and how it should be for the generic cacher.

 

Lets say for discussion, its you who finds a "non Kosher" cache. Whats your play? Simply pass it up the chain of command? Make a log saying, Great hide. Thanks for the fun and then email the higher ups and get them to archive it?

 

 

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

Lets say for discussion, its you who finds a "non Kosher" cache. Whats your play? Simply pass it up the chain of command? Make a log saying, Great hide. Thanks for the fun and then email the higher ups and get them to archive it?


Well, what I have done for 4 caches I have gone after that didn't meet the guidelines (2 were behind No Trespassing signs and 2 were blatently on railroad property) was to abort the search in 2 cases, and find and pull the caches in the other 2 cases. For the ones I found I logged the find, then followed with a ''should be archived'' log where I stated the reason why.

 

This is exactly what I would expect anyone to do. But judging from the number of finds that all of these caches had, I am sorry to say that few will report it. This is a disappointment.

 

Hemlock

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

But judging from the number of finds that all of these caches had, I am sorry to say that few will report it. This is a disappointment.


And this is precisely why people do not complain about local cachers / approvers. Few or none report problems. Often people think they are the only ones that feel a certain way about a situation and do not bother to complain. It's the "I'll wait and see what others do" situation.

 

But let's hope people voice their opinion using the approvers@geocaching.com and contact@geocaching.com e-mail addresses. If they want complaining then let's complain about all those little things we did not think was important. ;-)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

Well, what I have done for 4 caches I have gone after that didn't meet the guidelines (2 were behind No Trespassing signs and 2 were blatently on railroad property) was to abort the search in 2 cases, and find and pull the caches in the other 2 cases. For the ones I found I logged the find, then followed with a ''should be archived'' log where I stated the reason why.

 

This is exactly what I would expect anyone to do. But judging from the number of finds that all of these caches had, I am sorry to say that few will report it. This is a disappointment.

 

Hemlock


 

I for one applaud your follow through on the instances you have mentioned. I admire approvers willing to be up front about these issues and log a "this cache should be archived" in their own caching names.

 

I however was unaware all cachers were encouraged to actually remove a offending cache themselves. This would seem a can of worms.

 

Again, Thank you.

 

 

 

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

Link to comment

I can only work with material I have, without knowing the current verbal guidelines, I can't comment. On what's been brought up here, I have this to offer:

 

Approver FTF: Wait until it's found or Sunday of the next weekend so others get a chance! (not a problem here in CT but simply logical)

 

I prefer the existing, ''bring it to the forums'' method of appeals over creating a new process. This eliminates approver workload, takes advantage those with too much time on their hands, and provides democracy in action. (It would be easier were the cache page linkable however.)

 

I'd suggest approvers 'okaying' their own is bad form (there's nothing wrong with it per se though). Other approvers should do them so approvers can experience the system for themselves and maintain integrity.

 

Cachers are usually too polite to report issues with caches, especially were they of a local approver who approved his own!!

 

All in all, I believe the volunteer approvers are doing a wonderful job, and given the huge amount of continually approved caches (just think, new caches are being approved as you read this) with next to no problems/issues, I have proof. If a specific problem prompted this, that should be addressed individually rather than ''clamping down'' on all, which offends all.

 

Lastly, guidelines are only worth the paper they're written on. Volunteers in every organization I've volunteered for were given written guidelines as they do represent that organization and expose it to liability.

 

Please, keep up the good volunteer work,

 

Randy

 

PS: (How about a guideline for placers, to acknowledge and appreciate their volunteers?)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

 

This is exactly what I would expect anyone to do. But judging from the number of finds that all of these caches had, I am sorry to say that few will report it. This is a disappointment.

 


 

The problem here lies in a cacher understanding the scope of their power to change things.

 

Right now, in Canada my view is this: I can place a traditional Cache, I can place it with the best guidlines in place. I can not place any other type of cache (successfully on gc.com) and I can not really make any difference to the caches already approved in my area.

 

I say this beasue a) I have tried to place caches that are non traditional and 90% of the time get shot down. and :cute: I have notified of caches on private property only to get 0 response from the approvers and no action taken...in fact I can visit many of them still today and yet reported them last year.

 

So why would cachers even think (at least here in Canada) that we have any sense of empowerment over existing caches?

 

Again it seems to me the problem lies more in the Canadian region but thats what the more vocal of us have been complaining about.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

I however was unaware all cachers were encouraged to actually remove a offending cache themselves. This would seem a can of worms.


It obviously has to be a judgment call that only you can make. Same with walking past that No Trespassing sign. What is the risk? Who is the hider? Do you know him? What will be the repercussions? These were out of my home area (but within my approval area) and I didn't know the hiders from Jack. Then again, I'm on good enough terms with those in my home area that I probably would still pull the cache, then email them when I get home and give them a friendly ration. But thats me. Not everyone (approvers included) is on excellent terms with everyone. Some approvers may choose not to say anything with their normal account, then act with their approver account or have another approver deal with it. That's a personal choice they have to make. But, like you, I would still expect them to take action in one way or another.

 

After these particular caches came to my attention and I read through the logs, it was interesting how many people made comments in their logs about the signs or the railroad, but made no effort to bring it to the attention of the reviewers or TPTB. A few others also aborted the search when they saw the signs, but again they made no effort to alert anyone.

 

Folks, we don't have the time to watch every cache we approve. If there's a problem, please email an approver directly, or post a ''should be archived'' log which is emailed to about a half dozen approvers.

 

Hemlock

Link to comment

here's an example of the types of caches that are supposedly not suppose to exist, and yet I feel sorry to bring this up against this person because I know many more that break rules, (and have been reported long ago) and yet still remain.

 

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=3516058331&m=42060969

 

I beleive planting a cache in a region where you are not able to maintain it is an issue that should have been handled with this cache.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

I have notified of caches on private property only to get 0 response from the approvers and no action taken...in fact I can visit many of them still today and yet reported them last year.


It has already been noted by Mtn-Man that the mechanism that used to be in place for dealing with ''should be archived'' requests was broken. About a couple of months ago, this procedure was changed and I believe appropriate action is taken on all requests that have come in lately. Keep in mind that immediate archival is not always the appropriate action; sometimes the hider is emailed and asked to fix it, or if permission was given, etc.

 

I encourage you to re-report those caches. Mention in your note that it was previously reported and the problem remains.

 

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

It has already been noted by Mtn-Man that the mechanism that used to be in place for dealing with ''should be archived'' requests was broken.


 

This is actually his statement (copied from previous post)

 

"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 says nothing about requests for archive not being delivered, only that replies to the emails sent out have a reply-to filed for the bot and not the appropriate person.

 

The problems I speak of have nothing to do with trouble getting emails or replying to bots...there have been 0 response period, or are you saying the entire gc.com system of reporting has also been broken on top of this other issue?

 

Thus the fustration.

 

quote:
Keep in mind that immediate archival is not always the appropriate action; sometimes the hider is emailed and asked to fix it, or if permission was given, etc.

 

Good example, cache is placed in the private land of a drive in theatre (without their permission as we were somewhat chased off what we thought was a public trail) and into a farmers field ( the only other spot to be )where they were not happy either.

 

In both cases both owners of the land that this cache was right on the property line and over 150 meters from a public road...were not impressed and said that they didn't want the cache there...I reported it and nothing happened. I can go log the cache today.

 

I've reported caches in natural regeneration areas where the only way to get there is to trample through (bush wack) the area being regenerated. I consider myself a conservationist and as a former Scout Leader I respect the environment and the legalites we must follow...yet when I report something then nothing happens.

 

Thus again the fustration....which leads to us not reporting because we are effectively powerless.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by captnemo:

How about having a appeal process to a panel of 3 random picked approvers if a cache is turned down by the original approver?

 

The geocacher could submit any supporting documents they wished and the decision of the panel would be final.


 

Many time when we have a cache we are not sure of we take it to the rest of the admins for suggestions. In my case I am about 50-50 on approval vs archive after the rest look at it. Thats why I go to them, Im looking for input and other experience to work from

 

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

tongue.gif The Frog is my friend big_smile.gif

Link to comment

"Waiting for a FTF" are you kidding me? If we had to wait then I wouldn't be able to go out, log the cache then come home and approve it before logging it online! icon_biggrin.gif Am I the only one doing that? icon_wink.gif

 

At this point I couldn't care less about being FTF on caches and therefore wouldn't mind something in place for this although I don't see it being an issue. Can someone site some instances where this has been an issue? Yeah, I know not knowing usernames blah, blah, blah make it difficult but any hints to where or why you think this is an issue?

 

 

quote:
Originally posted by captnemo:

How about having a appeal process to a pannel of 3 random picked approvers if a cache is turned down by the original approver?

 

The geocacher could submit any supporting documents they wished and the decison of the pannel would be final.


 

Thats not a bad idea and fyi, we do discuss questionable caches and get other opinions before approving/disapproving such caches.

 

MiGO

__________________________

Caching with a clue....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

It has already been noted by Mtn-Man that the mechanism that used to be in place for dealing with ''should be archived'' requests was broken.


The problems I speak of have nothing to do with trouble getting emails or replying to bots...there have been 0 response period, or are you saying the entire gc.com system of reporting has also been broken on top of this other issue?
Sorry, the post I was referring to was this one. That post also gives another example of when no action is taken.

 

A year ago there was less than 10 reviewers for the entire world. All ''should be archived'' notes and all replies to archival notes went to just two people. Because those two were already overworked just keeping up with reviewing caches, many of those emails were set aside to be dealt with when the time arose. Unfortunately that time never came.

 

A couple of months ago the distribution of those emails grew to (I think) 7 people. Mtn-man is one of them, and since he is no longer overworked (there are now over 30 regional reviewers), he volunteered to forward those emails and/or act on them.

 

Like I said, re-enter your should be archived notes, and they will get much more attention today than they did a year ago.

 

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

Sorry, the post I was referring to was http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=88360128&r=83260428#83260428. That post also gives another example of when no action is taken.


Okay, that makes more sense and so does the information you posted.

 

I'm glad to see a more thorough reason behind a problem that I've been sitting here beating my head about for a year now.

 

The thing that then gets me is if these approvers are so overworked, how can they be sure all approvers are doing a good job? thus our issues with approvers in Canada.

 

It also again brings to mind why doesn't geocaching set up more regional approvers...I am confident there is no shortage of volunteers, the only reason I could percieve is the spots are held for the elite few that are chumy with the original admins?

 

I don't know because no one comes out and says: heres how to get involved and be an approver. Thus we can only assume what it takes, and in several discussions with some canadian cachers I've been told one of our aprovers has had as much time as any of us in and is still just trying to get use to approving caches, so I don't know what possible reasons they become approvers over others.

 

I'm not demanding they be perfect, but hey if its help thats needed then recruit and make these problems go away now.

 

Keith

 

guess this weekend I spend submitting log reports requesting archives...heck I might have to set up a cache-archive account since there are enough and I don't want my name now forever linked to so many archives when it should have been done by others long ago.

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by 9Key:

As far as approving one's own caches, I feel that I should be able to approve my own. If I don't know the rules, then who does?


 

Ahh but if you know the rules and post acurately then there is 0 problem having another approver approve yours either right?

 

So why not let someone else approve your caches? Then if they have an issue with the rules you as approvers become better through discussion of those rules.

 

Maybe your discussions will be more likely to resolve issues than us lowly cachers who just get told which way to jump.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

quote:
Originally posted by 9Key:

As far as approving one's own caches, I feel that I should be able to approve my own. If I don't know the rules, then who does?


 

Ahh but if you know the rules and post acurately then there is 0 problem having another approver approve yours either right?

 

So why not let someone else approve your caches? Then if they have an issue with the rules you as approvers become better through discussion of those rules.

 

Maybe your discussions will be more likely to resolve issues than us lowly cachers who just get told which way to jump.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky


 

Why does this matter one way or another to you?

 

just curious.

 

MiGO

__________________________

Caching with a clue....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by umc:

 

Why does this matter one way or another to you?

 

just curious.


 

Its a public post in a public forum for which there is public debate.

 

I have an opinion and expressed it. So why does it matter, perhaps it doesn't matter so much but it has been suggested approvers may become more amicable to the whole approval process if they themselves experience it as everyone does.

 

Why should it matter to an approver if they can approve their own caches?

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

The thing that then gets me is if these approvers are so overworked, how can they be sure all approvers are doing a good job? thus our issues with approvers in Canada.

 

It also again brings to mind why doesn't geocaching set up more regional approvers...I am confident there is no shortage of volunteers, the only reason I could percieve is the spots are held for the elite few that are chumy with the original admins?


I don't think the admins are overworked and if new approvers are needed they are added. If they are overworked then admins are added. Such is the case over the last year.

 

This is getting pretty far off topic. Can we get back to "Suggestions for Approver Guidelines"?

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

Then if they have an issue with the rules you as approvers become better through discussion of those rules.


I think we discuss enough of everyone elses caches in our private forum to know that we're all on the same page. Approving each others caches would be superfluous.

 

As has been stated in the past, if you have a problem with a cache placement, feel free to report it. It will be dealt with just the same regardless if it was placed by a reviewer or not.

 

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

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...


 

Sorry but being a human entitles me to an opinion just like you so if you want to take mine away then I say we take yours away too.

 

Where you joking with what you posted above?

 

MiGO

__________________________

Caching with a clue....

Link to comment

quote:
Bear&Ducky wrote: Ahh but if you know the rules and post acurately then there is 0 problem having another approver approve yours either right?


Sure, I would be fine with someone else approving my caches. Seems a bit pointless, doesn't it?

I trust myself to make good decisions about cache placements and I would hope others would do the same.

 

www.texasgeocaching.com

 

Does anyone want to talk about geocaching?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

Approving each others caches would be superfluous.


 

I'm not saying they post bad caches, and I will certainly report any caches again now that I've been asked to again and see how that works.

 

But the thing I don't believe is why it would matter that much. Do the limited number of approvers (limited seems to be the opinion were getting) really post *that* many caches each week that the caches they submit can't show up in someone else's queue?

 

There are advantages to approving your own, you can approve yours even if your list of caches to approve is long and you don't have time to do others posted before yours.

 

I guess it seems that those who hold the power seem reluctant to give it up themselves, since there is appearently no problems with rules or the approval process I fail to see why they are so reluctant to the idea.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

 

I don't think the admins are overworked and if new approvers are needed they are added. If they are overworked then admins are added. Such is the case over the last year.


 

And yet we seem to get the impression in many cases both in these discussions and other forums where people talk about waiting a week or so for approvals. I'm not sure if they are overworked or not but other forum posts suggest they are ( even approvers posting admint it...) if you'd like I'll post links to the topics.

 

quote:

This is getting pretty far off topic. Can we get back to "Suggestions for Approver Guidelines"?


 

Tried that, either saw messages deleted or edited....same with others. But I guess if you'd like I'll start a new topic to conitune this rant and the other and the other, since the easy way to keep from some of these topics is always to try and steer people back to a topic which has narrow acceptance of posts ( such as edits and deletions)

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

Ahh but if you know the rules and post acurately then there is 0 problem having another approver approve yours either right?

 

So why not let someone else approve your caches? Then if they have an issue with the rules you as approvers become better through discussion of those rules.

 

Maybe your discussions will be more likely to resolve issues than us lowly cachers who just get told which way to jump.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky


Here's the rub.

 

Some here say that approvers should only approve areas that they know well. But, approvers cannot approve caches in the areas they know best. How would an approver that may be unfamiliar with the area and the state and local guidelines do a better job?

 

That said, I don't generally approve my own caches. I can only think of a couple that I have approved. I do it so my spelling and grammer can be checked. (I love posting that line. icon_biggrin.gif )

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

I guess it seems that those who hold the power seem reluctant to give it up themselves, since there is apparently no problems with rules or the approval process I fail to see why they are so reluctant to the idea.


Nobody has given even one example of where this privilege has been abused. Potential for abuse is not a valid reason to revoke the privilege.

 

You drive a car. Potentially you might run someone over and kill them so I think we should revoke that privilege.

 

You write checks. Potentially you might write a bad check so we should have your spouse approve every check you write and vice-versa.

 

(Of course the ''you'' I refer to is hypothetical... for all I know you're not married and you don't have a car icon_wink.gif )

 

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Link to comment

Anything I can think of has already been suggested.

 

Time limit before approver can find new cache they approved.

 

Not approving own caches.

 

Sending Bilder a dollar every Monday.

 

Perhaps give each approver a geocaching.com email address. Would look more "professional" than yahoo or hotmail addresses.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never been lost. Been awful confused for a few days, but never lost!

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

And yet we seem to get the impression in many cases both in these discussions and other forums where people talk about waiting a week or so for approvals. I'm not sure if they are overworked or not but other forum posts suggest they are ( even approvers posting admint it...) if you'd like I'll post links to the topics.


Please feel free to if you would like.

I think all have been explained so I'm curious. We are not robots. We are human and can make mistakes. So do some cache creators. When we do it seems we are pulled into the public eye.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Here's the rub.

 

Some here say that approvers should only approve areas that they know well. But, approvers cannot approve caches in the areas they know best. How would an approver that may be unfamiliar with the area and the state and local guidelines do a better job?

 


 

Why can't an approver approve caches in their area????

 

I've not suggested that in any case, is there an exisiting rule? To me it makes sense an approver approves caches in their area, I also think someone else should approve approvers caches.

 

If you have regional approvers to a density to support the number of cachers than another approver within a hundred miles should be able to approve your caches and since your already an approver they should be able to recognize that and just verify the cache looks right.

 

I don't see the "rub" you mention. By all means approve caches in *your* area where *you* are highly familiar with.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment
Originally posted by mtn-man:

 

Please feel free to if you would like.

I think all have been explained so I'm curious. We are not robots. We are human and can make mistakes. So do some cache creators. When we do it seems we are pulled into the public eye.

 

This is not about trying to pull you into the public eye as per say, and heck if you want to be an approver you've accepted that fate. its like being a senator and expecting no one to pay attention to you in the government.

 

As for links, I'll get the list going later ( bed time...) but heres a very recent one to chew on:

 

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=7316058331&m=67560449

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

Nobody has given even one example of where this privilege has been abused. Potential for abuse is not a valid reason to revoke the privilege.

 


Nope no one has given an example of a specific case of abuse, but say we had one case, would one case of one approver mean it should change policy for all?

 

Would you say then the policy should change?

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Here's the rub.

 

Some here say that approvers should only approve areas that they know well. But, approvers cannot approve caches in the areas they know best. How would an approver that may be unfamiliar with the area and the state and local guidelines do a better job?

 


 

Why can't an approver approve caches in their area????

 

I've not suggested that in any case, is there an exisiting rule? To me it makes sense an approver approves caches in their area, I also think someone else should approve approvers caches.

 

If you have regional approvers to a density to support the number of cachers than another approver within a hundred miles should be able to approve your caches and since your already an approver they should be able to recognize that and just verify the cache looks right.

 

I don't see the "rub" you mention. By all means approve caches in *your* area where *you* are highly familiar with.


Sorry, I phrased that badly. Let me clarify.

 

Some here say that approvers should only approve areas that they know well. Let us say that approvers cannot approve their own caches that would be placed in the areas they know best. How would an approver that may be unfamiliar with the area and the state and local guidelines do a better job?

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

Link to comment

umc, from what I gather, the issue is that some people feel that an approver working up their own cache is a conflict-of-interest. Theoretically, an approver could create a cache that would not be approved if given the 'full light of day'.

 

Frankly, to me it is a non-issue, but oh well. I freely admit I'm a n00b... also a Type B, not A personality...

 

---------------------

It wasn't me.

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