Suggestions for Approver Guidelines

October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

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?

But if you already have cache approvers approving caches across thousands of miles, how much worse could it be if an approver a thousand miles away approves your caches as well? maybe you'd feel the fustration some of us get? thats why I keep saying why don't they error on the side of adding more approvers for regional approvals rather than just making do and sometimes overloading the admins.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

1.4k · October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:
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?

Actually I don't really care one way or the other. I'm just having fun debating the issue.

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:
Actually I don't really care one way or the other. I'm just having fun debating the issue.

Well the reason I asked was because the other side of the debate could be argued as well...if one cacher abused a rule would you do something that then affected all cachers?

Some of the reasons I see cache approvers using are based on the bad cachers out there and therefor pigeon holing the rest of us based on what some cachers do, yet when we attempt to apply the same type of ruling towards approvers there seems to be an alternate mentality.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

7.2k · October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:
But if you already have cache approvers approving caches across thousands of miles, how much worse could it be if an approver a thousand miles away approves your caches as well? maybe you'd feel the fustration some of us get? thats why I keep saying why don't they error on the side of adding more approvers for regional approvals rather than just making do and sometimes overloading the admins.

Of course, this has been debated many times recently. I expected this to be your answer.

We only approve areas that we know well, and more have been added to facilitate that. It seems your questions and request have been answered. This has been discussed many times recently. You are sort of asking for a double standard -- only approve areas that you know unless you are approving another reviewers cache.

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:
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?

It depends on the nature of the action and will be dealt with on a case by case basis.

hydee

I work for the frog

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

3k · October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by New England n00b:
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'.

Got it.

I guess the point is being missed (not by me) that if the cache was in violation of any of the guidelines and breaking major rules/laws that the cachers searching it would report it just like they would any other cache in violation. At that point they have no clue who approved so it wouldn't matter to them one way or another. The bottom line of that report would end up with TPTB and that person probably wouldn't be approving caches anymore. Its a huge risk to do something (violate the rules) and because of that its not worth taking the chance. Its an issue that takes care of itself because we like doing what we are doing and don't want to jepordize that.

MiGO

__________________________

Caching with a clue....

October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
You are sort of asking for a double standard -- only approve areas that you know unless you are approving another reviewers cache.

Not true, I've clearly said I support regional cache approvers that approve nothing outside 100 miles radius...which means approvers in the next "zone" would still be familiar with the area next to them and could approve that approvers caches.

As for this being the case for approvers only approving areas they are familiar with, there is familiarity then there is real knowledge of the area, I'm thinking we have 2 approvers across canada (C-A and C-T) as far as we all seem to see.

I find it highly suspect these two individuals are familiar with all of Canada.

if I'm mistaken then I'd be happy to hear whom else approves here.

Again it may also be (and this has been said repeatedly) a problem we see in canada more than you do in the states.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

2.7k · October 21, 2003

quote:
Got it.

I guess the point is being missed (not by me) that if the cache was in violation of any of the guidelines and breaking major rules/laws that the cachers searching it would report it just like they would any other cache in violation. At that point they have no clue who approved so it wouldn't matter to them one way or another. The bottom line of that report would end up with TPTB and that person probably wouldn't be approving caches anymore. Its a huge risk to do something (violate the rules) and because of that its not worth taking the chance. Its an issue that takes care of itself because we like doing what we are doing and don't want to jepordize that.

With all due respect, baloney. I know about you approvers. First it's your own cache, then it's the world!

!Viva la resistance!

(Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal!)

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

It wasn't me.

1.4k · October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:
Well the reason I asked was because the other side of the debate could be argued as well...if one cacher abused a rule would you do something that then affected all cachers?

This has already happened... Virtual caches were abused by a few, so we tightened down on vituals... Moving caches were abused by a few, so we no longer allow moving caches... Temporary caches... Locationless caches...

None of the things y'all have suggested regarding code of conduct for reviewers is much different from the unwritten code we now follow. I personally have no problem with any of it being written, but I still don't see the need for it.

I find it interesting how a few are so passionate about this perceived problem. There are tens of thousands of geocachers out there and the number of posters to this thread who are not reviewers could be counted on one hand. Whats up with that?

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

7.2k · October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:
Not true, I've clearly said I support regional cache approvers that approve nothing outside 100 miles radius...

Hmmm... doing the math, that would mean we would need over 400 approvers for the US and Canada alone. I don't feel like doing the math for the entire globe. I don't see how you could dream about getting well over 1000 admins worldwide to stay on the same approver guidelines.

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

I find it interesting how _a few_ are so passionate about this _perceived_ problem. There are tens of thousands of geocachers out there and the number of posters to this thread who are not reviewers could be counted on one hand. Whats up with that?

Theory?: FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

Maybe people dont know what they can do and fear the repercussions. Maybe its because they don't participate in forums. Maybe they see or have tried to make a difference and gave up.Maybe they have posted but their posts were deleted?

I've tried to start a new thread twice only to have it deleted for the purpose to discuss all the issues that this thread keeps saying is off topic.

So I try to get another discussion going on topic but its censored.

I receive a warning sayiny I'm being disrespectful. Well if voicing my concern and issues with the policies is disrespect then I'm guilty. I keep hearing from time to time however how open things are, yet I keep getting told to keep it quiet and post it to an email...where only those I have issue with will see it.

I'm not a paranoid person but I'm certainly suspicious and not willing to trust an organization that operates like this to address issues. Its like me being a politician and being able to with the click of a mouse delete all bad press. Wonderful power some seem to use here.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

7.2k · October 21, 2003

Ah, check that, I did the math wrong I think. Based on a 200 mile square we would need around 125 or so to do US and Canada. We would need around 2,300 admins worldwide.

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

October 21, 2003

Yes and?

I keep hearing about the huge number of cachers out there...and the community is what keeps this sport alive ( not just the few admins...) So whats the problem? Is it really that hard to delegate admins to that level...surely you could find 125 people worthy of the job across North America.

Aside from that the rest of the world in some case you may not follow an exact 100 mile rule simply because there are only a handful of cachers and a dozen caches.

Like Japan where there is about 36 caches in total....really only needs one admin who could work with area cachers to deal with issues on a regional level.

But in North America with the density of caches and cachers, I think 125 is not un-reasonable.

Maybe I'm just too involved in open source projects where numerous volunteers means better service and accountability rather than problems.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

9.4k · October 21, 2003

My $.02

1. Reviewers should be able to get the first shot at any cache listing if they so choose, as long as they approve the cache before getting in their vehicle to go on the hunt.

2. Reviewers should be able to approve their own cache. By being reviewers they have already been entrusted with the ability to approve or disapprove caches. In my mind they immediately have more clout when it comes to interpreting the guidelines.

If other folks don't like #1 or #2, tough nuts. Reviewers have a thankless task and frankly, they deserve the bonus of #1 and the respect of #2, since they get plenty of #2 anyway.

For full disclosure, I have sequestered myself from policy decisions regarding cache approvals. I only ask that my opinion has even weight as anyone else here.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

4.8k · October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Hemlock:

I find it interesting how _a few_ are so passionate about this _perceived_ problem. There are tens of thousands of geocachers out there and the number of posters to this thread who are not reviewers could be counted on one hand. Whats up with that?

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Well... I think it's been said before, that many cachers don't like the forums because of the hand to hand combat that goes on here.

But I agree that the discussion has come down to a couple of approvers and B&D.

I think we made Hydee fall asleep on this thread.

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

7.2k · October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:
Yes and?

I keep hearing about the huge number of cachers out there...and the community is what keeps this sport alive ( not just the few admins...) So whats the problem? Is it really that hard to delegate admins to that level...surely you could find 125 people worthy of the job across North America.

Yes, but I keep hearing that the approvers are not consistent (in this topic for example). Would that many approvers make it worse? Hard to say I guess.

Your right Touchstone.

Maybe some others will chime in. I'm done for a while.

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

October 21, 2003

Yes everyone else is asleep I guess ...something I said I was doing an hour ago but the new posts kept coming.

Jeremy, although I respect the fact everyone has an opinion I think its probably the bit of attitude in your opinion that can lead to problems... I refer to the "tough nuts" statement.

If your not willing to budge on something then why should anyone else bother, therefore why should we even continue to be engaged in here since direction like that simply kills any room for debate.

Its statements like that which lead organizations into the brink, simply because they do not wish to budge. Agian as I've used elsewhere, the linux and microsoft analogy. Bill Gates for years ignored the rants from customers about prices and revisions and continuous software updates, etc.. and closed source. People threatened to go open source, and he dismissed them. Now he has to worry about market share that is increasingly going to open source solutions because people are fed up with ms policy.

Just a breif and vague anaolgy ( I really need some sleep ) , but I think if you look hard enough you'll see the point in there and maybe you'll reconsider such a closed opinion.

good night all ( just checking one more post and sleeping...who knows it may be a long sleep we'll see if my account works in the morning )

Keith

Bear & Ducky

9.4k · October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:
surely you could find 125 people worthy of the job across North America.

Like Japan where there is about 36 caches in total....really only needs one admin who could work with area cachers to deal with issues on a regional level.

But in North America with the density of caches and cachers, I think 125 is not un-reasonable.

Not all areas of North America are densely populated.

Arizona: most live in the Phoenix metro area

New Mexico: most live in Albuquerque (metro)

Colorado: most live in Denver (metro)

Utah: most live in Salt Lake City (metro)

Do those states need an additonal approver for the outlying areas? The population outside of those cities is relatively small, so there are fewer cache submissions as well. It isn't a matter of an approver covering a certain area, but a certain number of cache submissions.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:
As for this being the case for approvers only approving areas they are familiar with, there is familiarity then there is real knowledge of the area, I'm thinking we have 2 approvers across canada (C-A and C-T) as far as we all seem to see.

Well my caches seem to get approved by everyone except C-A and C-T and I'm in Canada. Rather strange, but I don't ask questions. ;-) Actually I asked an approver to look at / approve one cache after he approved another one of mine a few days before. He was pleasant so I let him know about the cache. We had good communication via e-mail before on the previous cache.

October 21, 2003

An alternate theory on B&D carring most of the weight in the discussion: Maybe if he is speaking along the lines as others may think, and being fairly profecient at it, they are content to let him.

UMC posting has made me aware of how fast time flys. A mere few months ago his biggest goal was 100 posts a day and to break 20 finds. Time flies!

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

3k · October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:
UMC posting has made me aware of how fast time flys. A mere few months ago his biggest goal was 100 posts a day and to break 20 finds. Time flies!

It was 300 posts a day remember? What a mess that was.

MiGO

__________________________

Caching with a clue....

9.4k · October 21, 2003

I understand there is a lot of emotion around this topic, but the intent of Heidi's topic was to provide suggestions on guidelines, not criticisms. If you have a suggestion, please provide it.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

2.2k · October 21, 2003

Speaking from my personal experience, I think the approvers do a great job. I think they have the right to be anonymous if that is what they prefer but I have some concerns with the FTF issue.

Here are my suggestions for the guidelines:

1. An approver can't be FTF on a multicache or any other type of cache where the actual coordinates are not given out directly. That would not be fair since the approvers are given the actual coordinates for the cache.

2. An approver can be FTF on a standard cache but they can't go after the cache until it has been approved.

3. There should be a list of the approvers by area (and e-mail links) available on the website so that we know who to contact in case we have questions about an existing cache or a new cache that we are thinking of setting up.

4. Since there seems to be a lot of concerns about lack of consistency on the part of the approvers, there should be a standard appeal process available for those who feel their caches were unfairly disapproved. There should be an e-mail address (like appeal@geocaching.com) where cachers can write to a higher authority for reconsideration of their cache. There should be a small group of the more seasoned approvers who have the authority to consider the appeals.

5. The guidelines for virtual caches should be more clearly defined so that the approvers don’t have to evaluate them on such a subjective basis.

6. The approvers should definitely be able to approve their own caches.

Rocket Man

October 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pantalaimon:
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

I believe what you are rying to say is "precedence" which is a very good idea.

You can steer all you want, but it is all for naught if your not moving forward!

[This message was edited by WCoaster on October 21, 2003 at 11:48 PM.]

October 21, 2003

I originally posted this in another thread before catching up on this forum.

quote:
Originally posted by WCoaster:

What would be nice to see from GC regarding logged complaints about cachers or approvers is to implement a corrective actions protocol. For those not familiar with quality systems a corrective actions protocol is a process where any complaint is logged and given a completion date. On or before the completion date a written response must be returned to the person who initiated the complaint. The response must include the corrective actions taken to ensure the matter is corrected or the reason why it was decided no action was required.

Idealy a schedule of all corrective actions initiated would be posted with their respecetive due dates and actual completion dates. This would publicly demonstrate that our concerns as cachers are being addressed and would probably provide a better vehicle for enhancing the geocaching experience than forums ever could.

You can steer all you want, but it is all for naught if your not moving forward!

October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
My $.02

1. Reviewers should be able to get the first shot at any cache listing if they so choose, as long as they approve the cache before getting in their vehicle to go on the hunt.

ok, i am all for perks, if this is one of the perks, so be it.

quote:
2. Reviewers should be able to approve their own cache. By being reviewers they have already been entrusted with the ability to approve or disapprove caches. In my mind they immediately have more clout when it comes to interpreting the guidelines.

i dissagree with this one. everywhere else in the universe there is peer review. no reason why, for insuring proper caches, that this should not be done. many of us are entrusted with ability to do SOMETHING yet we are still subjected to peer review. its a good thing, we learn from our peers.

quote:
tough nuts.

1. its your ball.

2. i am a GREAT, BIG supporter of gc.com, whenever i can, i give it a plug and push people towards it, however this attitude is kinda crummy, guy.

quote:
I only ask that my opinion has even weight as anyone else here. Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

if that were the case, we wouldn't get "tough nuts" as an answer.

For full disclosure, i know, personally at least 2 of the approvers and think they are fine people. one is mtn-man the other i will call "unknown" becuase i don't want to blow his cover. I certainly trust him; he is a good guy. but don't ask for suggestions and then say "tough nuts". if you're going to do that, don't bother asking for suggestions. its just a waste of time.

[This message was edited by sranddboggny.us on October 22, 2003 at 04:59 AM.]

October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
It isn't a matter of an approver covering a certain area, but a certain number of cache submissions.

Agreed, That would be a reasonable compromise I would think and I'd be more willing to accept that right now, but I'd suggest the person approving the outlying areas is still within a reasonable distance (no 4 digit distances )

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
I understand there is a lot of emotion around this topic, but the intent of Heidi's topic was to provide suggestions on guidelines, not criticisms. If you have a suggestion, please provide it.

Ture, and I tried to take my discussion out of this thread but the new threads continually were deleted.

So as a result the only place I seem to get any comments in are on this thread or any other started by "them" (Yes quoting another topic...and no I don't really want to make that a "them").

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 22, 2003

I have a suggestion for Bear & Ducky:

You say you have a problem with the approvers that OK caches in your area, you say that it's not just you who thinks this, but a lot of other cachers you talk to at bars etc. You say it is ruining geocaching for you.

So far, from what I can tell, what you've done to rectify the problem all these cachers are having with approvers in your area is:

Archived your hidden caches.

and

Make countless (although I did see a count in one thread) posts stating your problems (though not specific, documented problems), and defending your position about these problems.

The thing is, I don't see the above really doing diddly-squat towards solving your problems.

So, my suggestion is, next time you’re in a bar, talking to all these cachers that are in your area that are having problems with approvers, instead of just talking, make a concerted effort to SOLVE the problem, by documenting the exact circumstances that you think the approvers are out of line (not just you, but everyone) and email your concerns to this site, (again, not just you, but everybody).

Because, whether or not it's really just you with the problem, or several cachers in your area, right now it looks like it's just you. And you really can't expect much to be done about a problem you say is effecting a lot of cachers in your area, when only you are complaining about it.

Particularly when, your stated problems and suggested fixes are so general.

I may have missed it in the 30 + posts and several different threads, but I haven't seen a specific example of a cache you submitted, that wasn't approved because an approver just didn't feel like approving it. But even if there is ONE, that doesn't make the approvers in your area evil or incompetent. If your area’s approvers are really as bad as you say, it shouldn’t be hard to prove, but, so far, you haven’t.

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

2.1k · October 22, 2003

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

So you encourage people to remove caches? I do not think people should remove a persons cache at all. The cache is not the property of Geocaching.com or anyone except the cache owner. Geocaching.com is only a listing service, correct? I understand the idea of removing it from the listings if it does not meet the requirements for listing them, but I do not agree with removing a cache. Perhaps a disclaimer that that geocaching.com has the right to remove the cache after certain things (not in accordance iwth guidelines and not able to contact the owner for a period of time), when they are submitting the cache for approval. And then it should only be a representative of the site and not just a cacher to remove it.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

My Stats

Found: 70

Hidden: 2

3k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
1. Reviewers should be able to get the first shot at any cache listing if they so choose, as long as they approve the cache before getting in their vehicle to go on the hunt.

And the approver has no unfair advantage, since they already know the final coordinates of any puzzle, offset, or multi-cache and have already quizzed the cache hider about any particulars about the hunt that was unclear to the approver prior to approving the cache.

Gee, I can't think of a single reason why anyone would provide an approver final coordinates that were off, say, 100 ft or so.

Lesson 101 in Alienating the Base of Support

quote:
If other folks don't like #1 or #2, tough nuts.

Indeed. Some people will respond by following the scenario above; you're practically begging them to. "Tough nuts?"

Other people may choose to react to such an attitude by deciding not to purchase/renew memberships, by boycotting the Groundspeak store and/or by archiving their active caches and not submitting any new caches for approval. "Tough nuts?" For whom? Practically all of "the good stuff" is available, free of charge, to all.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 22, 2003 at 07:15 AM.]

38.2k · October 22, 2003

quote:
1. Reviewers should be able to get the first shot at any cache listing if they so choose, as long as they approve the cache before getting in their vehicle to go on the hunt.

2. Reviewers should be able to approve their own cache. By being reviewers they have already been entrusted with the ability to approve or disapprove caches. In my mind they immediately have more clout when it comes to interpreting the guidelines.

I agree with #1, to a point. In some regions FTF's are a big deal. The approver does have an advantage and this will probably result in a lot of FTF hounds screaming bloody murder every time an approver beats them to a cache. I think that just for appearances sake, an approver should wait at least 24 hours before looking for a cache that he approved. This will give the FTF hounds a chance to get their FTF and eliminate a lot of potential bad blood.

Re, #2, I think that's perfectly fine. The approvers know the rules for their area better than anybody else. Why should Keystone Approver have to get an approver from accross the country to approve her cache? If an approver is found to be abusing his authority, then TPTB should deal with it then.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

4.8k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

So you encourage people to remove caches? I do not think people should remove a persons cache at all. The cache is not the property of Geocaching.com or anyone except the cache owner. Geocaching.com is only a listing service, correct? _

Given the scenario that Hemlock stated, I think it was totally justified in removing the caches at the time. There was a thread a while back where a cacher was arrested, fined, and put on probation for placing a cache next to an active railroad. I think Hemlock should probably get a medal for keeping future cachers out of jail for taking decisive action.

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

2.1k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by umc:

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?

_http://www.mi-geocaching.org_

__________________________

Caching with a clue....

It was lightheartedly typed. But the fact is, that an approver, moderator, admin or whatever they are called, are a face and representative for the website. I don't think it is of the best interest for them to get involved with debate(mud slinging) process. As you stated and I stated as well, they are human too. Their temper will flare and they will, just like the rest of us, post something that probably isn't in the best interest of the website. It tarnishes the image. We, as geocachers, all whine and complain. Whether it's about something we don't like or someone else that is whining or complaining. The best thing is for an approver/moderator/admin to do is moderate the message board when they are at the message board. If you want to participate in the message board as the general audience, then you don't need to be doing those jobs. You have your benefits for doing those jobs, I think you should be able to accept restrictions that go along with it as well. Moderators have their own section to discuss things in the message board and where they should.

Here's an anology. A customer goes to a business. They don't like the service they are getting. They let an employee have it because of the service in which they received. Is it in the right for the employee to debate with the customer? Generally it's the practice of the business for a higher ranked person (manager) to step in. When dis-satisfaction is brought forward, the manager normally handles it.

.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

My Stats

Found: 70

Hidden: 2

October 22, 2003

quote:
If an approver is found to be abusing his authority, then TPTB should deal with it then.

Surely, you can not be serious. we have seen bad behavior rewarded already.

9.4k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Rocket Man:
1. An approver can't be FTF on a multicache or any other type of cache where the actual coordinates are not given out directly. That would not be fair since the approvers are given the actual coordinates for the cache.

Good point on this one. My opinion was regarding traditional caches. Certainly if you know the answer to a multi-cache it would be unfair to find it first. Seems like common sense.

We're gathering input. If you can only criticise other people's ideas, don't bother posting.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sranddboggny.us:

quote:
If an approver is found to be abusing his authority, then TPTB should deal with it then.

Surely, you can not be serious. we have seen bad behavior rewarded already.

I don't understand your position here.

If bad behaivour has been rewarded in the past shouldn't some mechanism for dealing with abuses of authority be a priority in any written guidelines to stop it happening again?

________________________

What is caches precious?

9.4k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team AshandEs:

I don't understand your position here.

Seriously, if we're going to get anywhere, keep this topic on-topic. If you have ideas as requested by Hydee, post them here. There are plenty of other topics you can debate about.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

2.1k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
Given the scenario that Hemlock stated, I think it was totally justified in removing the caches at the time. There was a thread a while back where a cacher was arrested, fined, and put on probation for placing a cache next to an active railroad. I think Hemlock should probably get a medal for keeping future cachers out of jail for taking decisive action.

He was a representative for GC. I will go along and say *HE* was justified in doing so. But, I do not believe it's in the best interest to promote to common cachers to remove others caches when they believe it is violating a law of the community or a rule of this website. I still believe that perhaps a disclaimer with a little checkbox you have to check that you read it, says your cache can and will be removed by a representative of the website (and not a common cacher).

Brian

www.woodsters.com

My Stats

Found: 70

Hidden: 2

9.4k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
It isn't a matter of an approver covering a certain area, but a certain number of cache submissions.

Agreed, That would be a reasonable compromise I would think and I'd be more willing to accept that right now, but I'd suggest the person approving the outlying areas is still within a reasonable distance (no 4 digit distances )

Approvers living more than 1000 miles away is a bit far. Maybe the limit should be 500, but what happens when an approver takes a vacation? Should it be ok for the backup approver to live far away?

I'm ok with in-state approvers for large states or one approver covering up to 5 small states.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

9.4k · October 22, 2003

Woodsters, I'll start a topic to discuss that as it isn't really on-topic here.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

9.4k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
says your cache can and will be removed by a representative of the website (and not a common cacher).

Just to be clear, the listing can be removed from the web site. Geocaching.com does not own the physical cache, nor do we want to. We just have the right to archive listings.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

9.4k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
Woodsters, ...

If you have a personal message, click on the user's name and view their profile. There is a link on that page to email them.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

2.1k · October 22, 2003

I've been an advocator about approvers being near the area they are approving. I still believe it's a good idea, but it really makes no difference in the way they are handling things now. Even if they lived 5 miles from it, it doesn't mean they know that area and the approval method will still be the same as it is now. I disagree that approvers know areas better. They may know their own backyard and certain areas better, but because they've been to a state, does not qualify them as to knowing the area better. Local approvers are good for the areas which are questionable. Or lets say a "reporter". Perhaps there should be designated "reporters" for approvers? No opinion is given by a reporter, just the facts. Perhaps photos and etc to support the cacher or the approver. I've offered to do ground work when I can for approvers for this area as they are 1000 miles away.

What about that idea? Have "reporters" to cover areas? Perhaps reporters can remove caches upon request of the approvers as well (as long as the agreement is in place on the site).

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

3k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
If you want to participate in the message board as the general audience, then you don't need to be doing those jobs. You have your benefits for doing those jobs, I think you should be able to accept restrictions that go along with it as well.

I disagree, these are public boards open to everyone and a moderators input should be valued just as much as anyones. Its because of views like the ones you stated above that moderators here use a different account for modding and caching, I choose not to but can understand why they do with all the bashing that goes on.

Explain to me the benefits a moderator has here. Especially if they can be an active participant in the discussions.

Having the moderators and approvers be as much of the conversations and the community as possible is the best thing for the community because it keeps them in touch with what is going on. It also allows us to help out when necessary because we are 'around' and accessable to the community.

Geocaching is becoming more and more about community and not just listing caches for a lone cacher to go find. The folks here in Michigan love the fact that they have approvers within reach to help them when they ask for help.

MiGO

__________________________

Caching with a clue....

2.1k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

Just to be clear, the listing can be removed from the web site. Geocaching.com does not own the physical cache, nor do we want to. We just have the right to archive listings.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Thanks Jeremy. It was stated on the second page by an approver that they pulled some(caches) and then later said they "would expect anyone to do". Not picking on that one posting, but it has been said before on the board and cache pages, by approvers about the next person to find a cache to remove it.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

9.4k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
says your cache can and will be removed by a representative of the website (and not a common cacher).

Just to be clear, the listing can be removed from the web site. Geocaching.com does not own the physical cache, nor do we want to. We just have the right to archive listings.

I started a thread to get input on this new topic

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.1k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by umc:
Having the moderators and approvers be as much of the conversations and the community as possible is the best thing for the community because it keeps them in touch with what is going on. It also allows us to help out when necessary because we are 'around' and accessable to the community.

I do agree somewhat. I think they should be accessable. I do like it when an approver relays facts on guidelines on certain things. And I think it should end there. As an approver though I don't think that they should become involved in debates and rants of the sort. Especially those that become heated. We, as cachers, myself especially, make ourselves look like a$$e$ with no problem, but the image is tarnished when a person of authority does it.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by martmann:
Because, whether or not it's really just you with the problem, or several cachers in your area, right now it looks like it's just you. And you really can't expect much to be done about a problem you say is effecting a lot of cachers in your area, when only you are complaining about it.

I have been told by many they just gave up. I guess the best way for me to respond and appease the masses of approvers/cachers who disagree with me seems to also quit. As I've been told to by a few.

quote:
Particularly when, your stated problems and suggested fixes are so general.

First off the problems are generalized because this is not the spot to argue me versus gc.com, if I wanted that I would do it in emails which I have had with various members from gc.com.

So yes they are general because its the perceived general problems that are not just mine (how about searching old threads...this has happened in the past and will continue to happen) You'd think if over a long period of time the same basic problems keep arising then people would learn its not just in the heads of those debating it.

Second, my suggestions included adding more approvers to give a better density ratio of caches/cachers to approvers. Thats not a general suggestion.

And I also do not claim to know all the answers, thus I want to debate this in the open. It seems others would rather debate the fact that I'm debating instead of working with the ideas (although some of you have gone further now and I appreciate being able to have civil conversations).

quote:
I may have missed it in the 30 + posts and several different threads, but I haven't seen a specific example of a cache you submitted

{yada yada yada}

Again its not me versus gc.com and I've stressed that can be left in emails and I've said it a number of times.

If your not going to read the posts to figure that out then its sort of counter productive to argue the point. I certainly have read through the entire thread.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

What about that idea? Have "reporters" to cover areas? Perhaps reporters can remove caches upon request of the approvers as well (as long as the agreement is in place on the site).

I like the idea it's also a compromise between my thoughts and possible those of the admin not wanting hundreds of approvers.

The main issue it addresses is when a cache is questionable, the local reporters can actually physically visit the cache. I think most approvers could rarely visit 1/10th the caches they approve because of distance and time.

(note that is my guess, it could be less or more...but I think its a reasonable guess/assumption)

Great idea, any approver thoughts?

Keith

Bear & Ducky

Suggestions for Approver Guidelines

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment