Approvers & Admins, please avoid the forums

October 22, 2003

I wasn't going to get involved in today's forum madness, but in good conscience I realized I have to suggest something.

I'd recommend the approvers and administrators of GC.com avoid these forums.

I'm appalled at the reactions some have to this wonderful free service that facilitates our fun hobby. I'm appalled at the behaviours demonstrated to the volunteers.

So, please, for the future of geocaching, your own sanity, emotional health and pleasure in this hobby, avoid these forums.

On the other hand, the amount of tact demonstrated by GC.com reps has been commendable and above and beyond what one would expect from most businesses.

Evidentally, the approver selection process is SOUND--kudos.

So give up on the forums, turn them over to those that want to spend time complaining rather than producing, and enjoy geocaching.

For those who have issues with such, get over it; OR, earn the respect of your local geocaching community, earn the respect of GC.com's representatives and volunteer to commit 20ish hours a week to sit in front of your computer approving caches and reading emails of folks mad at you for not letting them place caches that don't conform with the posted guidelines.

Once the later is accomplished, feel free to revisit the former option--there might be a renewed perspective!

Enjoy,

Randy

PS: Yes, I said enjoy! Imagine that...

October 22, 2003

Well said!

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

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

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

October 22, 2003

Again the negative undertones seem to focus on those with issues. But I've come to expect that.

As for volunteering, if I thought it would do any good then my time is theirs but I've likened the environment here to that of a closed group with closed policies that are somewhat shared with those they affect.

Better solution would be to simply not have forums. (yes I know there are good reasons to keep them...but hey since some of us seem only to be abusing them, why not follow common policy and eliminate them)

Then everyone would seem happier and all the problems would seem to vanish from the gc.com site.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

24.7k · October 22, 2003

There is a fine line between a complaint and a constructive criticism. Most of that line is perception. For some enlightened people even the complaints are constructive criticism and taken as such.

Having said that, when discussing and proposing policy; problems and abuses real, imagined or theoretically possible, are valid considerations and should be brought to light so they can be addressed. There is no reason why approvers and admins should not be part of the process. They also have problems with us as users that need to be addressed. If they stay out of the discussion the issues they are needing to solve will not get the air time they deserve. The one thing they should do is not take anything as personal and get defensive, that too gets in the way of the real issues.

2.1k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by RJFerret:
OR, earn the respect of your local geocaching community, earn the respect of GC.com's representatives and volunteer to commit 20ish hours a week to sit in front of your computer approving caches and reading emails of folks mad at you for not letting them place caches that don't conform with the posted guidelines.

I'd probably be the most lenient approver in the history of geocache approvals. As long as it wasn't illegal or destructive, I'd probably give it a glance and a wave. If it sucks as a cache, the logs will tell you as much.

The problem lies with the fact that we are dealing with a "company" whose front mat says "Welcome, all in the community, this game is all about you"...but whose sign inside the door says "Now hear this...".

They are a listing service, not the game itself, and admit to as much, but the game is basically devoid of any meaning without a highly centralized listing service. The problems I often see in the forums come from when some portion of the community would like to see the game do something it's fully capable of doing that is at odds with the vision that the listing service wants, be it virtuals, pirate zones, locationless caching, more coherent guidelines, etc. The reaction to this seems to be general mayhem or venom in these forums, because it seems to be the only place any reaction can be garnered from one of the 3 rings of administration here.

If this listing service is to satisfy those who would complain here, then in my opinion, they are going to have to be more responsive to the community. In many aspects, over the past few months that I've read here, they have been getting better.

Let me give a really good example from my research. There is a company, Silicon Genetics, and they make a software product, GeneSpring. This software is used in a number of labs worldwide to perform statistical analysis of biology/microarray data. It is only as useful as they make it and the community paying for the use of this software often has demands. As new methods for analyzing this type of data are developed in academia, they are requested and SiGen incorporates it into future releases of their software. If they were to get a request for something and write back "Tough nuts"...they would soon find themselves out of business as some other solution would provide them what they needed. Instead they have never written back anything worse than "That is not currently in our inplementation pipeline...We'll look into incorporating that into our next revision".

The GS crew could really do themselves well to realize they are responsible to all of us, not just those that are always bubbling with joy to speak the name Groundspeak. If something won't interfere with the continuation of the community's current enjoyment of the game, then it should probably be implemented in the "next revision" as it were.

Instead of "turn your virtual into a multi" maybe the response should be "can you hang on to that idea for X months while we restore the virtual setup?"...Instead of "tough nuts", how about "I can see how approval of their own cache is somewhat incestuous and I doubt the good approvers of this site would mind their own caches being approved by someone else, but since approvals are not anonymous, it will probably not be any different than if they approved it themselves...so we will continue on this track with a wary eye towards abuse of this sort in the future". It all goes a long way.

--

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

9.4k · October 22, 2003

Approvals are anonymous. You can only view who approved YOUR cache, not anyone else's.

Other than that, this was the best post I've seen from you, Ju66ler. It's all in the way they say it. Customer service (or perceived service) is important to any business.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.1k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
Approvals are anonymous. You can only view who approved YOUR cache, not anyone else's.

It's not two-way anonymous as I am led to believe (IOW, the approver knows who the hider is). In my specific comments above this is a problem because even if the guidelines state an approver must have another approver okaying their caches, why would mtn-man *ever* tell Keystone that their cache was not accepted (names used in example only)? Sort of similar to a "blue wall"/cop-like situation...such that having another approver click "yes" instead of yourself is purely rhetoric instead of practically useful. This method would only be useful if all approvals were anonymous to the approver. Then an approver's cache presents similar to anyone else's cache and the other approver bases approval solely on the merits of the cache. But it's a bit of a tangent...just wanted to be clearer on the use of anonymity in my comment above.

--

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

October 22, 2003

Admins steering clear of the forums? It's an extreme idea, but it does have merits. After all, the action of the antagonists would be no fun without the predictable REACTION from TPTB ... eventually, all the antagonists would just get bored and have to go geocaching.

Unfortunately, it can't happen. If the admins stopped reading and posting, the rift would just deepen and the adversarial feelings would just get worse.

Someone just needs to take the high road.

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:

Instead of "turn your virtual into a multi" maybe the response should be "can you hang on to that idea for X months while we restore the virtual setup?"...Instead of "tough nuts", how about "I can see how approval of their own cache is somewhat incestuous and I doubt the good approvers of this site would mind their own caches being approved by someone else, but since approvals are not anonymous, it will probably not be any different than if they approved it themselves...so we will continue on this track with a wary eye towards abuse of this sort in the future". It all goes a long way.

Wow! Well said. I Wish we all could communicate that well.

In ways it does seem a catch 22 when problem solving is attempted in the forums. If not enough people participate the concerns can be dismissed to be a vocal minority.

Part of any worthwhile problem solving is to identify the various problems. Identifing the problems here are often seen as bashing. Not nessisarily so. Other times we are told to not bring up any problems without offering solutions. People do know what happened to them. Just because they may not have a solution is no reason to tell them not to bring it up. Other times we are told "Most of the cachers expressing concerns here are voicing hearsay not actual experience."

That may be true, but its not uncommon. There is a system of justice in this country where 12 people with no firsthand knowledge are asked to solve a problem. They are called a jury and it has been known to be an effective problem solving method. I dont mean to suggest that we are exactly a jury, only to point out that first hand witness is not required for those who attempt to assist in problem solving.

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

[This message was edited by Ish-n-Isha on October 23, 2003 at 12:21 AM.]

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

Part of any worthwhile problem solving is to identify the various problems. Identifing the problems here are often seen as bashing. Not nessisarily so.

The problem is when the signal to noise ratio is so low that it becomes difficult to seperate the bashing from the genuine concerns.

This is frustrating for those who have a genuine complaint that they can't get heard and for those who like to read a forum that isn't swamped with repetitive negativity.

If someone write a clear explanation of their concern I'd always read and try to see their side and never write off their opinion as bashing.

If they make similar posts a dozen times in a dozen different threads and then make another dozen posts about how they're being censored and then another dozen about how everyone else is narrow minded and doesn't understand them. I'm afraid I'm probably going to end up writing that off as bashing.

That's just how I'd react to these kind of approaches, this may vary for other people.

________________________

What is caches precious?

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:
Again the negative undertones seem to focus on those with issues. But I've come to expect that.

As for volunteering, if I thought it would do any good then my time is theirs but I've likened the environment here to that of a closed group with closed policies that are somewhat shared with those they affect.

Better solution would be to simply not have forums. (yes I know there are good reasons to keep them...but hey since some of us seem only to be abusing them, why not follow common policy and eliminate them)

Then everyone would seem happier and all the problems would seem to vanish from the gc.com site.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

My God! you've archived your caches, and are listing them some other place, why are you still in the forums, whining incessantly? Whatever your goal is, it isn't working, please give up.

Why don't you just pretend there are no forums?

___________________________________________________________

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)

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by martmann:
Whatever your goal is, it isn't working, please give up.

Why don't you just pretend there are no forums?

My goal is to continue to defend that my position is something more than a "waw waw my caches were denied" Since it seems easiest for people to dismiss the forum posts that way.

Also to rebuke comments like "Just go away","Just give up" I never knew just how many people here want to make quiters out of everybody.

As to your last suggestion. Why don't you pretend this reply post isnt here?

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team AshandEs:
The problem is when the signal to noise ratio is so low that it becomes difficult to seperate the bashing from the genuine concerns.

note this is difficult regardless of which side of the issues your on.

quote:

If they make similar posts a dozen times in a dozen different threads and then make another dozen posts about how they're being censored and then another dozen about how everyone else is narrow minded and doesn't understand them. I'm afraid I'm probably going to end up writing that off as bashing.

Its hard not to write a dozen posts in a dozen threads when the counter parts do so as well.

If you look back it all started in the virts debate, then someone started a new thread, and it continued.

Next messages started disappearing and people starting saying go play elsewhere.

Next we start talking about approvers and get statements like "Tough Nuts"

I don't want to have to be as vocal to simply get a fair chance to express an opinion but whne you have every other person trying to scream over you talking it becomes difficult not to post a dozen messages in a dozen threads just to defend your very opinion so it gets seen.

All of this is fact, not argument, not noise, fact to what happened if you sorted all messages from me by date and start at the first then go through you'll see it goes downhill fast trying to keep up with the noise from the other side.

Again it seems that signal to noise is being referenced like its approver to coplainer ratio. This is not accurate or a fair statement to make but has been made in some form or another many times.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

quote:
Originally posted by martmann:
Whatever your goal is, it isn't working, please give up.

Why don't you just pretend there are no forums?

My goal is to continue to defend that my position is something more than a "waw waw my caches were denied" Since it seems easiest for people to dismiss the forum posts that way.

Also to rebuke comments like "Just go away","Just give up" I never knew just how many people here want to make quiters out of everybody.

As to your last suggestion. Why don't you pretend this reply post isnt here?

Keith

Bear & Ducky

You seem to be the quitter. You archived your caches (in my opinion a fairly childish thing to do, just for effect). As for a position, I've asked before, What the heck is your position? All I see is WAAAAAAA I don't like the way approvers are... yet you never really get to what it is they have done that causes you to constantly whine on several threads about approvers without specifically saying what they have done wrong, (not a general 'the approvers are biased...', but specifics).

If you are done with geocaching, why are you still here?

I really don't mean to be too harsh here, it's just, you go on and on and on without really saying anything. WHAT IS THE POINT?

I'll ask once more, then I promise I will just ignore you (like I should've from the start), specifically what have YOU witnessed an approver do, that has gotten you all worked up into a tizzy?

___________________________________________________________

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)

38.2k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Customer service (or perceived service) is important to any business.

Any IT person can tell you the software company Computer Associates has made billions while ignoring the customer and often being downright hostile to them.

I'm not saying that GC.COM can, or should be like CA, but they do have their own vision of what they want this sport to be and it differs with that of some of the users. Those people will have to deal with it, or head elsewhere.

For those of you who think things are so horrible now, just wait until they sell out to Yahoo!, or AOL, etc... and you have corporate types running the site instead of geocachers (yeah, I know some of you are gonna say this is a good thing...but be careful, you may get what you wished for).

"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

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by martmann:
You seem to be the quitter. You archived your caches (in my opinion a fairly childish thing to do, just for effect).

Come on....there are how many messages like this already back in the original threads which I keep saying started in the virts discussion and carried over. This is why people say there is such a low signal to noise ratio, and accuse me of posting a dozen posts all the same. Because I have to make a dozen replies it seems to get people to actually read what I've said.

I archived my caches in a protest, I'm not the first, I wont be the last. I have said in my early posts (search against my name and read if you missed them) that I am still going out caching. Just not placing any more. If I were a "quitter" I'd stop caching, stop posting here, stop it all, instead I'm participating in a public forum with hopes that at some point the issues I have will either go away or get discussed more civilly at some point.(again read the early early early posts...not the noise in the last few threads)

quote:
As for a position, I've asked before, What the heck is your position? All I see is WAAAAAAA I don't like the way approvers are... yet you never really get to what it is they have done that causes you to constantly whine on several threads about approvers without specifically saying what they have done wrong, (not a general 'the approvers are biased...', but specifics).

Boy people like hearing me repeat myself...those "constantly whine on several thread" messages is the general response I get from people who never read or bothered to do as I suggested which is go back and read the virts discussion. I think if I try to spell it out any clearer than :GO READ VIRTS DISCUSSION we'd have yet another thread accused to be spoiled by continued whinning.

Please go and do that to stop both my repeating myself in here and to clean up the noise your now helping generate (Yes I consider this message noise as well since its pointless to have another message say the same thing but it seems I keep getting the same reply over and over and over again rather than anyone looking.)

quote:
If you are done with geocaching, why are you still here?

I really don't mean to be too harsh here, it's just, you go on and on and on without really saying anything. WHAT IS THE POINT?

I'll ask once more, then I promise I will just ignore you (like I should've from the start), specifically what have YOU witnessed an approver do, that has gotten you all worked up into a tizzy?

Again read the virts.....repeating myself constantly now.

The sumation of it all is inconsistencies that do exist. That is the issue and has been from the beginning. That is all I'm debating but it gets blown out of proportion when you have to send out 20 messages explaining that it is not about whining (which is the messages you seem to have read because those are the only ones that seem to go on and on without much point.)

So yes please either read from the beginning or ignore me and we'll clean up the noise in either case.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

2.7k · October 23, 2003

quote:
just wait until they sell out to Yahoo!, or AOL, etc... and you have corporate types running the site instead of geocachers

Thanks for the nightmare BrianSnat!

Just what we need... a healthy dose of ePHB's running this place and dumping spyware and extremely annoying banner ads everywhere. And Commercial Spam Caches from paying advertisers.

OMG... *shoots self*

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

It wasn't me.

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Any IT person can tell you the software company Computer Associates has made billions while ignoring the customer and often being downright hostile to them.

Being such a person yes I can agree, however that only lasts so long. People will and do eventually move on and it always starts with just 1 person, then a few more and then a few more.

Thus it may not happen tommorow, or this year or next year. But if you want longevity down the road then its best to pretend your serving customers now for 10,20 years from now. That way you'll always be in business.

In the end I suppose its all speculative, in 10 years time any of us could say" I told you so..." and we have no idea who would be right.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 23, 2003

OK I went back to (from what I can tell is)

Bear & Ducky's first post, it seems contrary to their post above, it is because they had an 11 part multi not approved (I made parts bold):

The following is from This thread

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

What really bothers me is when someone tries to plant a cache in an area, virtual/traditional/micro or otherwise and then the admins reject it because it may not fit into the existing rules they have even if the area geocachers would benefit from the cache and it was non destructive.

I don't think virtuals are the only problem here, I myself have had recently an 11 stage multi over 30 km (caches placed) rejected, and there was no existing caches showing off many of the areas I featured (Note these were not virtuals, they were on public land, they used codes to gather final coordinates...)

I've also had many more issues or been discussing with other cachers in our area the number of caches that have been refussed, yet everyone liked the caches.

As a result I finished just this past weekend archiving all but one of my caches (because its a group shared cache) and have hence decided no longer to support geocaching with caches.

The unfortunate thing is the area geocachers seemed to enjoy all oh my caches and they all saw weekly visits. I for one will be looking into alternate "listing services" as its been put to maintian my freedom to evolve in this sport.

Keith.

Bear & Ducky

So the only Specifics I see are, they had a multi not approved, and lots of caches have not been approved, even though everybody liked them (how many could say they like them, if they were never approved? Judging from your posts, it doesn't seem like people would feel comfortable telling you to your face that they don't like them, for fear of never ending prattle). So it seems you have Chosen to whine in the forums about unapproved caches, without trying to work with the approver who denied it. at least you don't mention trying to work with them anywhere, or what their reason may have been for not approving them (except maybe because they don't fit in the rules).

As for the 'Tough nuts' comment, in context, I was glad it was put that way, instead of the PC way of saying it like: 'I'm sorry, but not all your suggestions will be implemented, but you will be expected to stay within the geocaching.com guidelines while using this site.' Tough nuts just sums it up well.

___________________________________________________________

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)

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by martmann:

So the only Specifics I see are, they had a multi not approved, and lots of caches have not been approved, even though everybody liked them (how many could say they like them, if they were never approved? Judging from your posts, it doesn't seem like people would feel comfortable telling you to your face that they don't like them, for fear of never ending prattle). So it seems you have Chosen to whine in the forums about unapproved caches, without trying to work with the approver who denied it. at least you don't mention trying to work with them anywhere, or what their reason may have been for not approving them (except maybe because they don't fit in the rules).

Just ignore my messages then. You quote part of the message which gleans it one way and leave the beginning of it as well as don't consider the context of the thread it was posted in, here was the paragraphs before what you cut

quote:
The rest are only true if the cache meets the ultimate guidelines for the standard ordinary traditional cache.

As stated before, many locations do not want traditional caches in there because of potential damage. Off site caches don't get people out to areas you want them to see, or if they do they get them to fly by the area only to get to the final cache location.

Geocaching was more than getting the box and signing a log, it was about a good healthy adventure and seeing places you'd never have seen without having looked up that coordinate and searching for it.

This is clearly a discussion about the virts being restricted more because some people at gc.com don't like them. My point I was trying to get accross by saying mine were not approved and yet local cachers liked them was that not all people like all caches and that when it affects good ideas from getting approved it seems wrong.

Again your trying to make it all about :B&D whinning in forums their caches not approved.

I've already taken my personal actions and archived them, even my approver stated I made those decisions and archived them before they did.

Anyway your not interested in any effort to consider the whole context so this really is pointless.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

2.1k · October 23, 2003

Everyone has an opinion, but who is the right one?

Those who complain about those who complain about those who complain about those who complain....no one is better than the other.

ju66l3r, very good synopsis or anology. In my book, customer service goes a long way.

RJferret, tact? I wouldn't go as far as to say they have responded with tact. Hydee on the other hand has. Jeremy, hasn't in my opinion. None of the approvers that respond on the forums don't either. Well maybe one or two, but I won't be naming names. I guess if you don't agree then "Tough Nuts". Was that a tactful way of putting it?

People take the forums too seriously. It's easy to ruffle one's feathers. Even at the caceh event that I attended at that you put on RJFerret, there was talk amongst some of us(not sure if you were involved or not), but about the forums and how people go overboard with it and let their feelings get in the way and htey take things too personal. Of course it was brought up due to the fact that my name was known by a few there because of the forums and my outspokeness. But anyone there that met me will tell that I'm probably not what they perceived until they met me. I hope it's the same with the others out there.

All in all, things are pretty good with the functioning of the website. Of course it has it's ups and downs and there are things that truly suck. The constructive criticism is what is going to help make things better in the long run. If you can't take the constructive criticism like an adult, then "Tough Nuts". That is part of running a business and serving people. People are gonna be mad at you, curse at you, spit at you, and so on. If you can not handle it, then you are in the wrong business or you need to put someone in place that can handle it, tactfully. Whether you are a volunteer or not, you can expect the same. Just as their are volunteer firemen and policemen (and many others), they are treated no differently than those who get paid for it.

The title of the topic, did get my attention. I do somewhat agree, but not totally by the reason stated in the initial posting. My perception is that employees of the business don't need to get involved in debates with the customers. It's good for them there to state facts or a rule/guideline, but to get involved in the middle only tarnishes things. Should they be restricted from interacting liek the rest of us? Probably. Is it a good idea, no, not in my opinion.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

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

October 23, 2003

I give up, Bear & Ducky, post all the general whining you want, I was looking for specific reasons why you are whining, I pointed out the only specifics I could find, but you just have a bunch of general whining to do.

If you could state, more concisely, what exactly you problems are, maybe some people could back you up, (heck, maybe even me).

But every time I try to find out what exactly your point is, you respond by saying: (to the effect of) 'You aren't trying to see my point' INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY STATING YOUR POINT. So since you choose to whine about nobody seeing your point, instead of making a point.

I give up. You either don't have a point and just like whining, Or you know your point is lame, and just can't let go. Either way, I'm sorry to bother you about it. I'm done.

Happy caching! (or whatever they call it on that "other listing service").

___________________________________________________________

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)

October 23, 2003

Hey we can do """""" now, how long has that been hapnin?

___________________________________________________________

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)

October 23, 2003

Its a waste of time talking to you since you've missed the posts with examples that are specific in them.

Good example: Virtual cache disapproved at the tomb of Laura Secord, there are no other caches in the area and the spot is historically significant. The location does not want a geocache on it.

The approver has said virts have to be something significant like CN Tower, Niagara Falls, not a tombstone...tombstones do not count.

Thats a specific example.

Now for the guidlines, they expressly say tombstones count.

Theres a direct contradiction...or inconsistency.

Had you read all the posts you would have read this example. I know others posted examples as well.

I can give more but like I said it seems pointless.

Keith

PS - I'm at a point where I could care less if you support or back me with this or any other specific example because its generated too much noise just trying to get people to read the ***** posts in the entirerty.

Bear & Ducky

October 23, 2003

Bear,

Did you bring your case before the forums and ask the opinion of others as to whether that cache should have been approved?

By posting a simple "Do you think this should have been approved?" post and giving your reasons, other would have been able to wiegh in on it and give an opinion.

I have not seen such a post. Instead all I have seen is griping with a few references to denied caches tossed in. That is not the way to go about pleading your case.

Usually if you post about a cache that was denied and the majority of those in the forums agree with you, then the odds of having that cache re-evaluated and approved are greater.

All the moaning does is make folks not listen to you.

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

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

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

October 23, 2003

This is how to seek approval

The above thread is a great example of how to go about pleading your case. Advice was sought, given and in the end the cache was approved.

Here is anoter thread that goes about it in the same way.

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

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

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

October 23, 2003

Bilder,

Again I appreciate the suggestions on the way to get a cache approved.

The cache in that specific example is long since past and the cache was an example I brought out about a cache that belonged to a fellow geocacher and not myself.

I consider him a great cacher and great cache placer and have talked to him about these issues and listened to the responces he got from the approvers.

At the time it was not appearent (nor do the responses from approvers say to go there...I realize its a tiny sentance in the guidlines which says if your cache has been archived go and post...its not something you draw attention to when reading that as I looked several times to see it.) to go to the forums to question a cache.

Now that is perfectly clear and if in the future I wish to argue a cache I will.

It still does not address the fact that guidelines are being interpreted differently and potentially biased by peoples preferences causing inconsistency in the approval process.

This is again not about any one particular cache. It is simply to say that I would like the admins to tell the approvers to follow the "LETTER" of the law in all cases. If then the "LETTER" of the law doesn't apply, update and change those guidelines.

A cacher should not have to post to a forum to argue a cache that is clearly valid 100% with the posted guidelines.

That being said.....a new suggestion would be to have all approvers include a note in any correspondance on cache approvals that anything could be brought up for review by posting in the forum.

That would make it far clearer to those out there that assume they have no power to debate once an approver says no.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 23, 2003

Cache Placement Guidelines

Read a couple paragraphs into the guidelines and you will find this:

quote:
If your cache has been archived make sure to read the log to see why. If you want to dispute your archived cache, feel free to post a message in the forums to see what others think. If the majority believes it should be posted, your cache may be unarchived.

It has been like that for some time.

Maybe a mistake was make in denying your cache. If so, let the community weigh in and maybe you could have gotten the decision reversed.

Archiving your caches and making the posts like you did is not a good way to win friends or influence people.

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

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

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

21.9k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:
At the time it was not appearent (nor does it say in the guidelines or in the responses from approvers) to go to the forums to question a cache.

From the very beginning of the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines:

quote:
If your cache has been archived make sure to read the log to see why. If you want to dispute your archived cache, feel free to post a message in the forums to see what others think. If the majority believes it should be posted, your cache may be unarchived.

If there is something about this statement that is unclear to anyone, please feel free to ask and I'll be delighted to assist.

EDIT: Bilder beat me to it... thank you. I should remember that I am to stay out of the forums.

To add some independent value to my redundant post, I will add that Bear & Ducky's moving cache would not be approved even if appealed to the forums. New ones just aren't allowed to be listed. As for the series of 11 caches along the same trail, the Canadian approver did double-check with the other approvers in our Admin forum at the time when he tried to work on shaping them into an approvable cache or series of caches. The approvers unanimously agreed that Cache-Tech handled the situation appropriately.

|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|

Keystone Approver, Geocaching.com Admin

"Eschewing Entropy and Ensuring Enthalpy in the Groundspeak Forums"

October 23, 2003

Yes Bilder,

I edited my message....

I saw it after looking again twice.

Its not as obvious when your simply trying to figure out what are the rules to place... how many of us actually read 100% of our instructions?

So yes I missed that, and to be honest I knew the basic rules so I dont read guidlines a year or so after I started caching and thus when the time came up and the caches are disapproved, it still seems like theres no recourse because you are only looking at what seemed to be the relevent sections ( I often tdo a Find on page to get me to the spot and read that section entirely if I have a question.)

At anyrate I know now for the future and yes I will post to the forums my issues. But I still think to help those others that could overlook the guidelines the approvers should tell them if they wish to bring it up in the forums for further debate they could and then if needed point them to the right forum.

Just to be helpful right?

Keith

Bear & Ducky

21.9k · October 23, 2003

You checked the box when you submitted your cache stating that you had read the guidelines. It is rather hard to overlook them when you are reminded about them when submitting a new cache. I'd encourage you to actually read them! Perhaps you might wait for the new version, however, which we are hard at work on updating and clarifying for the benefit of the community.

Several of us do point out to geocachers that they have the right to bring the issue to the forums. Usually this occurs when discussions via e-mail reach an impasse. Perhaps if you had not voluntarily archived your cache submissions and set your e-mail client to reject messages from Cache-Tech, he might eventually have made this suggestion.

|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|

Keystone Approver, Geocaching.com Admin

"Eschewing Entropy and Ensuring Enthalpy in the Groundspeak Forums"

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:
]If there is something about this statement that is unclear to anyone, please feel free to ask and I'll be delighted to assist.

EDIT: Bilder beat me to it... thank you. I should remember that I am to stay out of the forums.

Its clear, again I'm falable as anyone. Good thing I just didnt go take my toys and leave as soo many have suggested because I wouldn't have had the chance to be wrong and see that this is here.

I still think its a good idea, any comments welcome on this, that the approvers make a point to tell cachers the same thing.

"Go to the forums if you question my ruling...the forum you want is here ....."

This would help in some cases avoid hard feelings and helplessness. I know I'm not the only one to skim over instructions here.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:
You checked the box when you submitted your cache stating that you had read the guidelines. It is rather hard to overlook them when you are reminded about them when submitting a new cache. I'd encourage you to actually read them! Perhaps you might wait for the new version, however, which we are hard at work on updating and clarifying for the benefit of the community.

I work in IT, ever install software?

I check a lot of boxes that I long ago decided were just same junk different pile.

Not to say the guidelines are junk, they serve a purpose much like the guidelines for using the servers you have running at gc.com and the operating system you use, etc.. etc..

I would seriously doubt I am the only one gulty of skimming and I did originally read the entire thing..heck I printed it out. But that was over a year ago and that single tiny paragraph really didn't stand out as important then when I'm not worried nor had I had any problems with archived caches.

However if I wanted to get real picky it should say archived or disapproved caches. But I understood what it meant after reviewing it.

Ultimately I can admit I made the error (I've made at least 3 such admissions I think in these forums....). The error still does not invalidate other statements made.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 23, 2003

Some kind of form mail telling of the appeal process for denied caches is a good idea.

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

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

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

October 23, 2003

In my experience the time-honored tactic of "taking your ball and going home" only works if you actually go home. I have little respect for the kid who says "I am not going to play with you anymore." Who then stands in the middle of the sandbox complaining that the other kids won't play "their way".

I discovered the forums fairly lately, at first it seemed like an interesting way to learn more about the sport and how others played the game. But of late, all i seem to see is a bunch of drama queens trying to add interest to their virtual lives. A month ago it was all pirates, this week it is how the approvers mistreat everyone and how it is not fair. Next week it will be something equally silly.

I am truly sorry that none of you came up with this idea before Jeremy. But those are the breaks, he created something truly wonderful for all of us, and you don't like the way he does things. I am just thankful for what we have. Am I happy with everything that is going on, no. Do I think change is possible, yes. Are you going to get it by making the forums a miserable place to go, no I really do not think so.

I have noticed that there are quite a few "caching experts" on here that have a ridiculously low number of finds. I am sorry but if you have 40 finds and 1000 posts, I am not particularly interested in your expertise. Get out there and cache, that is where the experience and the joy of this game is. In every thing in this life you will find people who do things and you will find people who constantly complain about "the man" keeping them from doing anything. Jeremy may be "the man" but he isn't keeping this monkey down. It is his game, so I play by his rules, but the key is I play. Get off your keyboards and get back into the woods, or the parking lots or wherever it is you cache. Remember it is JUST A GAME, and games were meant to be played.

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

Ultimately I can admit I made the error (I've made at least 3 such admissions I think in these forums....). The error still does not invalidate other statements made.

As far as I can see all your concerns are things that are being looked at and dealt with at the moment.

It has been aknowledged that the guidelines aren't up-to-date and they are being worked on at present.

It has been aknowledged that it might be a good idea to get some kind of "approver code of conduct" and a call was made for suggestions. I assume that is now being worked on.

There may be things that you and GC.com disagree on, but I think that's where the "tough nuts" comes into it. Although people will enjoy quoting that out of context and putting it in their sig lines I don't see why people are so outraged. There is always going to be times when GC policy does not please everyone. It's is possible to please everyone. sometimes you want something.. and you can't have it. That's "tough nuts".

Beyond these issues is there still any ongoing specific problems?

While we're citing caches that succesfully "beat the system" I'll add this as my favourite. It wasn't approved because the aprover followed the letter of the law. But the hider made their cae, argued it well, had to put up a bit of a fight and ultimately the rules were bent a little because it was an exceptional case.

________________________

What is caches precious?

2.1k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:
the new version, however, which we are hard at work on updating and clarifying for the benefit of the community.

Can't wait to see them.

I think the forums are a great place, if used for beneficial reasons. I run a couple and have been on many. They are great for sharing ideas, experiences, and so on. And they should continue to do so. I think the problem doesn't really extend to people complaining about something. Afterall, just like the guideline that was quoted above says, if you don't agree then bring it to the forums. That is complaining, no matter how you look at it. Things are to be debated here, just like that guideline basically states. Debate is good. Things are debated everyday to better things and peoples lives. Used properly here, it can be done as well. I think the real problem doesn't lie in the issues brought up, even though some may seem anti-jeremy or anti-geocaching.com , but more or less of those that feel the need to defend Jeremy and geocaching.com. The direct attacks on each other is the real problem. Remarks about whining, cry baby, don't let the door hit you on the..and etc are more childish than the issues that people bring up when they don't like an answer they get. I make suggestions all the time. Some agree with them. Some don't. It's no sweat off my back. If you don't agree, give me a good debate on it. Keep it nice, civil and clean. Stop the name calling and the bashing. Just because you don't agree with someone on something, it does not constitute using bad taste in replying or posting. Poeple can negatively post something, but in a nice format. I was just thinking of some of Bassoon pilots latest postings. (no offense Bassoon)

The site is a good one. It was the pioneer of the sport. It's had the edge all along and will continue to. Even those who don't like something here, still come back and use it's services. I'm not 100% happy with everything. But I'm back here all the time.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

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

October 23, 2003

Yes you are correct is seems like my concerns are being looked at more.

Which is why I've tried to be more persistent even after being bashed in return...and still some creative nasty emails. But filters work wonders for them. (oh and yes I did send a note about them to contact@geocaching.com...in case your wondering...hard to say if anything can be done.)

I think had I just dropped off and let it die then perhaps some (not all) of these issues may just get passed up as..oh well he's just whinning and now he's gone.

I have always said and hoped that it would only generate better policies, since we can't see what they are doing behind the scenes then I can't tell if it has helped. But I suppose as the new policies get revealed I will know one way or another what has been decided.

The tough nuts comment is still harsh though, I think a more polite and service orientated reply is better such as suggested earlier "Thank-you for your suggestion/concern we don't have that implemented at this time but will consider it for future revisions."

It goes a lot farther than tough nuts.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 23, 2003

quote:
The tough nuts comment is still harsh though, I think a more polite and service orientated reply is better such as suggested earlier "Thank-you for your suggestion/concern we don't have that implemented at this time but will consider it for future revisions."

It goes a lot farther than tough nuts.

Keith

Bear & Ducky

From the sound of your posts, I think Tough Nuts was a valid comment.

I'm not picking on you or anything, but what do you have against the guys at GC.com? (And believe me, I'm not looking into getting into a pissing contest with you)

Personally I have volunteered for many different organizations over the years and there are always some people who like to complain about the work your doing.

How bout this? We all let bygones be bygones and get on with our fun sport?

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team AshandEs:
I don't see why people are so outraged.

WHY?

Cant it also be simply a case of attitude displayed?

That is why ju66l3r's post above is so on the nose. Isnt the overall attitude a legitimate topic for discourse?

It may be that is why martmann has such a problem getting his mind around it. There IS more than just the trees here. There is the forest.

Part of this threads topic and idea is that debating by the admins in the forums is at odds with the method of communication ju66l3r demonstrated in his post.

The suggestions for approver code of conduct thread gave a chance for people to input. But without a "prototype" framework to work from, the page was really too large to effectively identifiy that.

Some areas of the country were really concerned with FTF. I didnt know that. To me its no big deal. But without us cachers having free rein to see the issues facing us nationwide, how will we ever agree on a statement that will affect us all?

These forums are our congress. The only way we can get together and discuss or formulate Ideas on solving problems is here.

Maybe we would like to have a chance to actually come to an agreement ourselves on a "mission statement" for approvers, without the president or VP shooting down or ideas or saying we are off topic.

When people brainstorm to problem solve, there are a lot of bad ideas that come out too. SO what? Given a little time I believe the community can come together with some effective suggestions.

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

October 23, 2003

The problem was tough nuts was not used as a direct response to my replies.

It was used in one of Jeremy's posts when he said what he thought were his opinions and then summed it up with if you don't agree then tough nuts.

Nothing to do with my posts, in fact the two items being discussed then may have evolved from my posts but they were in fact dealing with two issues (FTF and Approvers approving their own caches)

I did participate something in that thread, but I wasn't advocating opposing opinions. I did however suggest tough nuts was bad form for the guy at the top (no matter how much he says his opinion should just be carried equal)

I too have worked with many non profit orgs, I beleive in open source..how can I not work with non profits. So as a volunteer for them I agree there are those who complain.

There are also those orgs where the top becomes a closed private club and all others had best stand clear or be squashed out of the org.

So I guess thats why I've been so persistent and heated at times.

Beyond that I agree completely that we can let bygones be bygones....but its probably best to say we agree to disagree on some things here and leave it at that. Since the points debated now are no longer points that help or hinder geocaching, those have already been made.

Keith

Not trying to get the last word in either so post a reply, if I don't see a fundamentaly new debate item in it then I think were kosher. Otherwise I'll be happy to debate anything (and agree too) till the cows come home.

Bear & Ducky

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

quote:
Originally posted by Team AshandEs:
I don't see why people are so outraged.

WHY?

Because it takes more than someone saying "tough nuts" to outrage me and I sometimes make the mistake of assuming other people do or do not get outraged at the same things that outrage me.

I thought it was a valid statment in the context. I'd have used "tough luck" I was assuming the nuts were a regional variation.

________________________

What is caches precious?

October 23, 2003

quote:
I thought it was a valid statment in the context. I'd have used "tough luck" I was assuming the nuts were a regional variation.

No its not quite as simple as a variation. Or maybe the langauge in the Western US is a little different that and on the eastern side of Canada. Anythings possible.

To myself if I had to equat Tough Nuts to something else it would be more like "Pi** Off you limey *****" (Note built in triggers prevent me from giving you the actual phrase but I think you can guess...if a mod sees this please not its not being used as an attack context, merely a langauge comparison. If you still feel its out of line then edit away and I'll apologize, )

That may be closer to more regional terms for you in the UK...of course I'm basing that on the way my family talks being mostly from England and Austrailia (but all England born with the exception of my generation).

Keith

Bear & Ducky

October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:
From the very beginning of the http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx:

quote:
_If your cache has been archived_ make sure to read the log to see why. If you want to dispute your archived cache, feel free to post a message in the forums to see what others think. If the majority believes it should be posted, your cache may be unarchived.

I guess I find it just a little bit funny to see this.

On the one hand the point is made that if a bunch of people are making a request in the forums for a feature on the site to be added; we are told that the forums represent a very small part of the CG community. So no matter how many people are asking for it they make up a very small number of the users of this site.

Yet the guidelines say to take your case to the forums to perhaps have your cache unarchived.

Would that be the same very small number of users of this site that would be making that decision?

2.1k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Monkeybrad:
I discovered the forums fairly lately...

...Do I think change is possible, yes...

...It is his game, so I play by his rules...

Ahhh, to be young and naive again. Change is not possible. You will be assimilated.

Ask him if it is his game. He'll tell you it's the community's game, he is just the listing service. Of course, he's the only listing service...and without the listing service, there'd be no game...and there's no way to reach everyone in the community to alert them to other options for listing services...but it's *your* game, my friend...it's all of ours' game.

--

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

2.1k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by GrizzlyJohn:
Yet the guidelines say to take your case to the forums to perhaps have your cache unarchived.

Would that be the same very small number of users of this site that would be making that decision?

LOL! Add to that the fact that most of the people in the forum will then tell you to stop being one of the whiners and go out and cache!!

HA! Feed the noobs to the wolves, I always say!

--

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

Approvers & Admins, please avoid the forums

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