Jeremy Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Bear & Ducky: Great idea, any approver thoughts? This is a place for suggestions. Once the suggestions have been gathered together, we can debate on them. Otherwise the point of this topic will be lost to a sea of debates on individual suggestions. If you want to create a topic specifically debating this suggestion, feel free to post it. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Link to comment
dboggny Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 i think that there should be 2 levels of approvers. all approvers would serve the area they are assigned to. the senior approvers (or a number of them, say in groups of three) should also be available to hear appeals on caches for a larger geographic region. Link to comment
+Touchstone Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Bear & Ducky: 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 Good idea in theory, but I think there would be some caches in Idaho and Montana that are a multi mile trek that would be hard to verify. If I were an approver (which I'm not), I'd have to think twice about visiting remote caches because of the time involved. I would also want to log the visit; especially if it were arduous 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
+NJ Admin Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: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. Trying not to get off topic, but let me make it clear; Because I devote 20+ hours a week to approving caches, free time that you use to go hunt them, I have less chance of being FTF, not greater. It's a rare cache indeed that doesn't have at least 5-6 names in the log ahead of mine. There are instances where I have gone and checked a questionable cache placement before approving it. Those times I still have not signed the logbook or logged online until I have had a chance to return after approving the cache, usually several weeks later. When I am hunting geocaches, I have the same cache page as you do, the same Pocket Query as you do, the same single start coordinate loaded in my GPS as you do. I can't remember the final location of a multicache or how it was hidden 30 minutes after it's been approved, let alone 30 days later when I finally get caught up enough on approvals to go find some caches. After I return home, I will sometimes compare the multi locations with the ones the hider submitted for approval. A hider I felt was intentionally misleading on his coordinates would then have to wait for me to personally verify their next multicache before approval. When it comes to puzzle caches, ask any of the locals that actually hide them and do them, I pass them off to other approvers so as not to spoil my hunt. -------------------- Personal slave of The Frog. Link to comment
Bear & Ducky Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Jeremy:This is a place for suggestions. Once the suggestions have been gathered together, we can debate on them. Otherwise the point of this topic will be lost to a sea of debates on individual suggestions. If you want to create a topic specifically debating this suggestion, feel free to post it. Done Please see thread: http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=54960079&r=54960079#54960079 Keith Bear & Ducky Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by NJ Admin: Trying not to get off topic, but let me make it clear... (clipped for brevity) NJ Admin: Kudos to the fact that this is how *you* operate. That doesn't mean that *all* approvers operate like this, which makes it a perfect candidate for a hard and fast rule. An comment from an approver that says "this-is-what-I-do-already" in response to a suggestion seems silly. If you do it already, *and* you do it already because it makes sense, wouldn't it make sense for *all* approvers to be held to the same standard? Thus shouldn't it be a rule? Rather than posting a simple, "I-do-this-already" post, maybe you could post a "Good-idea,-I-do-this-already,-so-I-think-all-approvers-should-too.-Make-it-a-rule" post. Sorry if this is not the place for my reply, but I finding it increasingly difficult to follow the "stay-on-topic" rules when the gc.com representatives can't follow those rules themselves. And, to provide a little further on-topic relief, I believe that the definition of an acceptable virtual needs to be honed. I can't even conceptualize what the current standard is... so I can't offer any suggestions for improvement. 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
iryshe Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Pantalaimon:Sorry if this is not the place for my reply, but I finding it increasingly difficult to follow the "stay-on-topic" rules when the gc.com representatives can't follow those rules themselves. I warned NJ admin, and now I'm warning you. Try to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Link to comment
+hydee Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 This issue has gone well beyond the scope of this topic and is no longer productive. Accordingly, it has been closed. We really do value your suggestions and want to hear them. Unfortunately, the discussions in these forums have not been very constructive. If you have any suggestions that might assist us in improving the situation, please email us at contact@Groundspeak.com. Similarly, if you have any concerns or issues with an approver in your area, please email approvers@geocaching.com. hydee I work for the frog Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox! Link to comment
Recommended Posts