Jump to content

WHO ARE THE ADMIN/APPROVERS?!?

Jomarac5

By Jomarac5
in General geocaching topics

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
Posted

This topic has been brought up in a couple of threads and could probably be better suited for a thread all of its own. It belongs here instead of the regional forum because this is not an issue that applies to only our region.

 

We're experiencing a problem in more than one location in Canada with unfair approvers and a lot of suspicious activities that point to approvers/admins.

 

What is bothering many of us is that there seems to be some percieved need for secrecy amongst the approvers -- why is this?

 

In every organization that I have belonged, where someone is in a position of authourity, there have been no clandestine overtones -- most likely because it helps keep these people honest, and after all, if they are being fair and on the level, then why the need to hide?

 

I've asked the question of Who are the Admin/Approvers? in the past and it was never answered. Seems to me that now there are more reasons to know the answer.

 

Who are the Admin/Approvers?

 

And why do they hide behind fake accounts?

 

*****

 

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 20, 2003 at 07:43 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 20, 2003 at 08:12 PM.]

Link to comment
hydee

+hydee

Posted
Posted

Who are the admin/approvers?

 

They are volunteers for Groundspeak. They have all been choosen as Approvers for different reasons. They are part of your local communities. In many cases, these individuals run your local organizations.

 

And why do they hide behind fake accounts?

 

Most approvers at this point work under approver accounts. They are not fake accounts, they are an account that is used when serving as volunteers for Groundspeak.

 

This is no different than you as a geocacher. You choose a username, Joramac5, to use while functioning as a geocacher on this site. Joramac5 is not your real name, due to our privacy policy I cannot say what your real name is. Your actions as a geocacher have become known as Joramac5. That is your username for your geocaching account no more than that.

 

Approvers are now given a second account for their Admin/Approver/Forum Moderator roles.

 

We encourage approver accounts so their functions as an approver do not interfere with their functions as a player. Simular to my working account. I am hydee you all know when I post I am speaking for Groundspeak. I also have a geocaching account, I post my finds/hides under this account.

 

All of the actions of the Approvers are accountable to Groundspeak, to you as a community, and to each other. If there are issues about the actions of an approver, please send comments or concerns to contact@Groundspeak.com. Please give examples of what the issues are, and a member of Groundspeak will look into them.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

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

Link to comment
Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

quote:
Hydee wrote:

We encourage approver accounts so their functions as an approver do not interfere with their functions as a player.

This is exactly why there should not be fake usernames -- and you've hedged the issue by not addressing it directly. If Jomarac5 was an approver, there should be no reason for Jomarac5 to use another account name -- doing so only increases the ability for abuse. What is there to hide? Why should a person who has great influence over a region have their identity masked? Should they not be accountable to members in their own region?

 

quote:
If there are issues about the actions of an approver, please send comments or concerns to contact@Groundspeak.com. Please give examples of what the issues are, and a member of Groundspeak will look into them.
I sent a detailed e-mail to you a week ago regarding the problem in our area, as well as several mentions of the problem previously in other e-mails -- you opted not to reply, nor has anyone else from Groundspeak addressed these concerns (even after sending two follow-up e-mails inquiring about the first e-mail).

 

Seems that this is a much better place to discuss matters -- at least I've received a reply here -- even if it does not address the problem.

 

*****

Link to comment
CYBret

+CYBret

Posted
Posted

quote:

In every organization that I have belonged, where someone is in a position of authourity, there have been no clandestine overtones -- most likely because it helps keep these people honest, and after all, if they are being fair and on the level, then why the need to hide?

 

Are you sure about that? My understanding (from friends who have done the work) is that a good number of subscriber based companies have employees in customer support/tech support who use aliases instead of their real names. They may not be as obvious as something like "ILAdmin" but they're aliases just the same.

 

How important is it to know who they are? You can still email them, you can still email Jeremy with details about what they did or didn't do that you liked or didn't like. Are you needing a name so you'll know where to send the fruit basket?

 

Our local admin is about as secretive as you can get. I've even had people accuse ME of being him/her/whatever. Yeah, like I need one more headache. Sure I'm curious, but if I ever found out who they really were I'm sure I'd just be disappointed.

 

Bret

 

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.

When a man found it, he hid it again." Mt. 13:44

CYBret's Geocaching Page

Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
Posted

I agree with the fake usernames. They should go so far as to have a special Admin profile where you can see a spot that says "click here to report a problem" rather than the contact@Groundspeak. It should also list a click here to see our policy spot.

You know accountability and all. We could have approver approval stats. Moderator approval stats. We could see if they fair better than our presidents who normaly have approval ratings less than the percentage of people who elected them.

 

While I'm on a roll one of the best ideas I've heard in a while was that approvers should be drafted members who take turns in their area. You would think twice about being a jerk becauese you are going to be on the recieving end. There are problems with making a system like that work, but the idea has merit.

Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted

Most long time approvers still approve and hunt caches under the same account. Many newer approvers have separate accounts for their GC.COM volunteer activities.

 

Who are they? Often people you meet while cache hunting, or at your local geocaching event. Why do they use other accounts? Because they want to separate their role as geocachers with their positions as approvers. I'm sure you can figure out why this might be necessary.

 

"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

Link to comment
Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

CYBret, your post does not explain WHY there is a need for secrecy.

 

It is very important to know who they are -- they are representing our community and we don't know who they are because they hide behind aliases. Why? Where's the need? If they are doing the job in an admirable way, why do they need to hide who they are?

 

We have person in our area who is also creating a lot of problems within the community -- it is well known that he was an admin and it is well known that he is still an admin. He is abusing his role as an admin.

 

Groundspeak has been notified about this person, but refuses to address that there even is a problem or to do anything about it.

 

Hiding behind a fake username or the apron strings of Groundspeak is not acceptable.

 

Approvers need to be accountable to the community as they are the ones who are forging the direction of the game.

 

*****

Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted

quote:
While I'm on a roll one of the best ideas I've heard in a while was that approvers should be drafted members who take turns in their area. You would think twice about being a jerk becauese you are going to be on the recieving end. There are problems with making a system like that work, but the idea has merit.

 

Nah, approvers are often chosen because they are are long time geocachers who, in many cases, have a record of working with local authorities.

They know the rules and they know the issues.

 

To rotate approvers for the sake of rotation is not a good idea.

 

"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

Link to comment
jeff35080

+jeff35080

Posted
Posted

Hmmmm.... well, I guess I can argue the point of anonymous usernames from both sides.

 

I can understand why some approvers would want to remain anonymous. After all, at one time or another we do give them some grief here on the boards and I'm sure they catch a lot of static via email

 

On the other hand, a non-anonymous approver gives a sense of credibility to the sport/hobby. Knowing that the approver is a 'real' person like the rest of us makes many feel as if their involvement here is just as important as anyone else.

 

Here in Alabama, we typically have three approvers that we interact with, mtn-man, erik and Crow-T-Robot. I know erik is real because I have spoken with him via email many times and have seen his logs in log books around the area. I don't know Crow-T-Robot. Lastly, I know mtn-man is real, because I met him yesterday at an event cache. It was nice to finally get to speak with him in person, even if I have given him some 'grief' here on the boards. Guess what, he was just like the rest of us, even if he does carry a few bricks. I don't always agree with everything he says here on the boards but I know that he is a real geocacher just like me (even if he didn't wear the shirt with the target on the back icon_wink.gif )

 

I tend to prefer approvers with real account names that cache under those usernames, but can understand why someone would not do so. Anyways, that's just my $0.02 on the subject, your mileage may vary icon_smile.gif

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Link to comment
Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

quote:
Renegade Knight wrote:

They should go so far as to have a special Admin profile where you can see a spot that says "click here to report a problem" rather than the contact@Groundspeak.

Well, I expressed our problem directly to the person in charge of approvers, and I've been ignored.

 

*****

Link to comment
Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

quote:
Bloencustoms wrote:

I think that you can hold an approver accountable through their approver account.

No actually, you can't. We have a local cacher here who causes a lot of problems with other cachers and is known to be an approver. By having the two identities, he is able to skirt issues by saying "it wasn't me". There is no need for the duality -- the person should be accountable for their actions regardless of whether they are caching or approving. Period.

 

If they are using unsavory practices while caching, then why should they be able to hide behind an alias?

 

*****

Link to comment
Bloencustoms

+Bloencustoms

Posted
Posted

I'm sure there are other features available to admin accounts. It makes sense to create a new account rather than try to modify an existing one. Besides, many of the admins have the name of the state / area they approve in their user name. I think that serves to alleviate confusion.

 

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

Link to comment
Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

quote:
Bloencustoms wrote:

If you already have associated both accounts with one person, why are we discussing this? A cacher is a cacher, and an approver is an approver.

They are one and the same. And why are we discussing this? Because the person in question is still denying that they are an admin. GC is not listening to the complaints.

 

We are discussing this because the system currently allows for a great deal of abuse. Now, before you go off about that being an eroneous remark, it certainly does not apply to all approvers, because many approvers DO use their own usernames.

 

But there are those who are hiding behind an approver account name...

 

*****

Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted

quote:
No, actually I can't. Is there something that they need to hide?

 

Many of the older approvers work and geocache under the same account. Most of the newer ones have separate accounts for good reasons. The cheif reason is (I'm guessing) so they can seperate their role as an approver, from being a geocacher. Do they really need to be accosted at social events, or while on the trail by some irate geocacher who has a chip on his shoulder because of some perceived sleight?

 

Personally, I've never hidden behind a screen name (OK, Boblog, but he was funny). You can easily Google "Briansnat" and find your way to my front porch. But I do understand why someone would hesitate to use their own account to approve caches.

 

"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

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on October 20, 2003 at 06:52 PM.]

Link to comment
Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

quote:
Bloencustoms wrote:

I'm sure there are other features available to admin accounts. It makes sense to create a new account rather than try to modify an existing one.

Bull. Aks Jeremy to set you up as an admin or an approver -- a few mouse clicks and it's done. Modifying an existing account is moot. It's easy.

 

quote:
Besides, many of the admins have the name of the state / area they approve in their user name. I think that serves to alleviate confusion.
What confusion? Most of my caches (and caches of others who are known not to like the admin in question) are approved by approvers outside of our geographic area anyway.

 

Why do the approvers need to hide behind an alias?

 

*****

Link to comment
Harrald

+Harrald

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

 

Why do the approvers need to hide behind an alias?

 

*****

 

Because of people that make mountains out of mole hills or who need to be rude and disrespectful to anyone that doesn't agree with their narrow views.

 

Nuff' said

 

_________________________________________________________________________

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Sydney J. Harris

Link to comment
Bloencustoms

+Bloencustoms

Posted
Posted

quote:
Why do the approvers need to hide behind an alias?
Briansnat wrote...
quote:
The cheif reason is (I'm guessing) so they can seperate their role as an approver, from being a geocacher. Do they really need to be accosted at social events, or while on the trail by some irate geocacher who has a chip on his shoulder because of some perceived sleight?
This thread might be the perfect example of the sort of behavior they wish to protect themselves from.

 

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

Link to comment
Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

quote:
BrianSnat wrote:

Most of the newer ones have separate accounts and (I'm guessing) for some very good reasons. The cheif reason is probably so they can seperate their role as an approver, from being a geocacher. Do they really need to be accosted at social events, or while on the trail by some geocacher who has experienced a perceived sleight?

That's a lame argument. Don't use bad manners as an excuse to do something that is unnecessary. Do you really think that an approver is going to be accosted at an event? Think about it -- if the approver is doing their job correctly and fairly, then there's no need for people to be upset.

 

And further to this, if Groundspeak were to get rid of the problems associated with the poor approval process (i.e., an exorbitant number of subjective rules), then perhaps the number of people who are dissatisfied with the approval process would cease to be disatisfied as they would know what is an what is not allowed from the outset.

 

*****

edit: typo

Link to comment
Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

quote:
El Diablo wrote:

Just curious J5...is there anything about Geocaching that you like?

I like the game just fine. I don't like all the inconsistencies that go with it though. You seem to think that this is about me. It's not.

 

Why do the approvers need to hide behind an alias?

 

*****

Link to comment
TeamJiffy

+TeamJiffy

Posted
Posted

Let me make an attempt at this.

 

Jomarac5 - I believe the approvers need to be doubly anonymous because all of us are largely singly anonymous.

 

Let's make up a geocaching username for the sake of discussion. Let's call him/her "HairTrigger". All GC.com knows about HairTrigger is a username (and a perhaps made up first/last name, and the username can be a hotmail account). So, HairTrigger (let's say "he") can be really anonymous.

 

Now, let's make up an approver whose caching name is "JRandomCacher" - this cacher is your average cacher, nice to meet at events - and at these events, he/she meets a lot of other people who he/she (let's say, "she") really doesn't know - except by anonymous username. These people can be the most ethical people in the world, or perhaps the most petty and vicious when crossed - JRandomCacher really doesn't KNOW - because we don't know the backgrounds of these folks.

 

Now you ask JRandomCacher to be an admin. They make an AWFUL admin, but they are TRYING to do the best job. What if JRandomCacher disapprove's one of HairTrigger's caches, and HairTrigger REALLY doesn't like it - and HairTrigger more than flames, HairTrigger tries to get even. Perhaps it will be juvenile tactics - such as stealing JRandomCacher's caches. Or perhaps it will be WORSE - who knows - we are largely anonymous and unknown to each other. But, if HairTrigger really came down on JRandomCacher in the forums, or elsewhere, what if that made JRandomCacher afraid or uncomfortable to attend cache events.

 

Now, you could be the nicest cacher in the world, but JRandomCacher has to deal with DOZENS if not a couple of hundred, AT LEAST. One of them could very well be a HairTrigger. Why take the chance of having the activity of Geocaching RUINED for JRandomCacher just because they tried their best at being an admin, but failed at it! Rather, use a second name "JRandomAdmin" and if they are an awful admin, they should be able to stop, and go back to being JRandomCacher and still enjoy the activity without worrying about teasing, flaming, harrassment, etc.

 

If the approvers got PAID, I'd agree with them not keeping them anonymous - because they would be accepting a JOB - but because the approver job pays NOTHING - it seems reasonable to allow them privacy so they can go to event caches in peace, so they don't have to worry about retribution for their acts as an admin, etc.

 

Remember, all of us are largely anonymous with each other, but the admin becomes a focus for 100s.

Link to comment
Bloencustoms

+Bloencustoms

Posted
Posted

quote:
Think about it -- if the approver is doing their job correctly and fairly, then there's no need for people to be upset.
Have you missed all of the complaint threads wherein people who have had caches denied bash the approvers? The admins do their job fairly and correctly, and get chewed out about it. These cachers might see the unfairness in grandfathered caches and desire to take it out on an approver who is just doing their job fairly and correctly.

 

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

Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted

quote:
That's a lame argument. Don't use bad manners as an excuse to do somthing that is unnecessary. Do you really think that an approver is going to be accosted at an event? Think about it -- if the approver is doing their job correctly and fairly, then there's no need for people to be upset.

 

What's "fair" to you isn't fair to someone else. No approver can make everyone happy.

 

Heck, there were people who protested against Mother Teresa.

 

"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

Link to comment
hydee

+hydee

Posted
Posted

Accountability. They are completely accountable as an approver. If there are problems with a local approver then the problems are with their approver account. This has nothing to do with them as a player of the geocaching game. So you may send your complaints to Groundspeak and reference the approver's username. The issues will be looked into.

 

Adding a link to the approver profiles to report problems is a great suggestion. Until we have had a chance to work out the best way to implement something of this sort we have set up a queue for issues of this type. You may now email approvers@Groundspeak.com. This queue will only be used for approver issues, and will separate the emails from the general mailbox. Please use this sparingly or it will defeat the purpose of having a separate queue.

 

J5, You sent an email to me last week, and yes I am looking into the allegations. But these are complex issues that I must take time sort out where the truth lies. Then make decisions based on what is best for Groundspeak and the community. Allegations against an approver are never taken lightly.

 

cute.gif hydee cute.gif

I work for the frog

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

Link to comment
Harrald

+Harrald

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

Who is Jomarac5 ?

 

smile.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

 

To easy Drill sergeant!

 

_________________________________________________________________________

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Sydney J. Harris

Link to comment
dboggny

dboggny

Posted
Posted

i like cabbage. most people don't like it becuase i think it is prepared poorly most often. If you cook it just a little past done (so that it is a bit extra tender) it is more palatable to most people. i dont understand why people who like cabbage do not like brussel sprouts. its strange becuase they are mini cabbages.

Link to comment
Keystone

Keystone

Posted
Posted

Jomarac, I won't even *try* to point you towards the phrase in the forum conduct guidelines that calls for posters to respect the volunteer cache approvers and Groundspeak personnel. But I WILL blow the whistle when it comes to your tone towards other geocachers in this thread whose views may differ from yours. Your response to BloenCustoms is close to the line. Please don't cross it.

 

As for the substance of this thread, I have nothing to add to Hydee's thorough response. You can keep asking but I doubt that you'll hear anything more definitive.

 

|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"

Link to comment
Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

quote:
TeamJiffy wrote:

Perhaps it will be juvenile tactics - such as stealing JRandomCacher's caches.

Now that sounds like something that IS happening in our area -- but I don't think it's got anything to do with the guy being an approver -- it's got everything to do with the guy being an egotistical maniac. This guy has gone on to accuse several cachers of stealing his caches -- accusations that are unfounded and untrue.

 

And for the sake of arguement, if JRandomCacher doesn't cut it as an admin, people will let it go. But if JRandomCacher doesn't cut it as a person before becoming an approver, then where does it go?

 

You see, the double edged sword now? What if the cacher has an attitude problem and is then made an approver? Hmmm...

 

*****

Link to comment
NJ Admin

+NJ Admin

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

Bull. Aks Jeremy to set you up as an admin or an approver -- a few mouse clicks and it's done. Modifying an existing account is moot. It's easy.

Even if it is that easy to set up, there are many other issues involved. As a cache approver I sometimes post hundreds of notes to caches a week. As a geocacher, I do not want to have to filter through those 1000's of notes on "My Cache Page" to see my finds.

As a cache approver, I have access to an enhanced cache search page so I can see other nearby unapproved caches and archived caches while checking out a new cache. As a geocacher, I don't need nor desire this feature, it only would make it that much harder to plan my cache hunts for active caches.

As a cache approver, I need to exchange well over 100 emails a week related to cache approvals and "this cache should be archived" notices. As a geocacher, I have no desire for all those emails clogging up my personal email account that my caching account is tied to.

Hows that for just 3 out of dozens of technical reasons for having a seperate approval account?

 

quote:
Why do the approvers need to hide behind an alias?

I think everyone else has figured it out except you, J5. Someone as active in the forums as yourself has seen dozens of examples of very personal attacks against the older admins that approve under the same account they cache under. They are 2 seperate accounts because they are 2 seperate jobs, and for me, 2 totally seperate persona. As a geocacher, I may or may not agree with all the guidelines. As a geocacher, I personally may not even like you, or I might be your best friend.

As a cache approver, I must apply the guidelines of the site evenly, even the ones I don't agree with. I apply them the same to my best friend as I do my worst enemy. If the cache violates the guidelines, it's archived, if it doesn't, it's approved, no matter how I personally feel about you.

 

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

bad_boy_a.gif Personal slave of The Frog. bad_boy_a.gif

Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted

quote:
i like cabbage. most people don't like it becuase i think it is prepared poorly most often. If you cook it just a little past done (so that it is a bit extra tender) it is more palatable to most people. i dont understand why people who like cabbage do not like brussel sprouts. its strange becuase they are mini cabbages.

 

Cabbage is good, especially if it's been boiled with beef brisket, mustard seed, peppercorns and other spices and served with a mug of Guinness.

 

I think the problem is that this website serves cabbage, boiled beef and sometimes fliet mignon, but some people just don't like the way it's cooked.

 

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, COOK IT YOURSELF.

 

"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

Link to comment
dboggny

dboggny

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

Nothing surprises me anymore.

 

Especially when it comes to the way this game is managed.

 

*****

 

HEY! good for you dude. you realized its a game! now stop posting this cry baby crap in the forums and go out and enoy some geocaching while you enjoy the great outdoors and remember, ITS A G A M E!

Link to comment
Jomarac5

Jomarac5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

quote:
sranddboggny.us wrote:

HEY! good for you dude. you realized its a game! now stop posting this cry baby crap in the forums and go out and enoy some geocaching while you enjoy the great outdoors and remember, ITS A G A M E!

It's a game that is being ruined in my neighbourhood by a local cacher/approver. Perhaps if you knew what was going on, you wouldn't be so smug.

 

Cry baby crap? Sounds like that's what you're doing instead of listening to what is going on here.

 

As I mentioned, nothing surprises me anymore.

 

*****

Link to comment
dboggny

dboggny

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
sranddboggny.us wrote:

HEY! good for you dude. you realized its a game! now stop posting this cry baby crap in the forums and go out and enoy some geocaching while you enjoy the great outdoors and remember, ITS A G A M E!

It's a game that is being ruined in my neighbourhood by a local cacher/approver. Perhaps if you knew what was going on, you wouldn't be so smug.

 

Cry baby crap? Sounds like that's what you're doing.

 

*****

 

Wah! Wah! I'm rubber, you're glue (notice the correct usage of the you are contraction.)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...