What are the rules ???

March 11, 2003

Recently a number of caches in our geographic area (West Coast) have not been approved by Admin. There have been various "approvers" involved and a number of the reasons given for rejecting caches are NOT listed anywhere under the guidelines - so hear are several questions:

how many "approvers" are there?

do they have a set of criteria that the rest of us don't know about?

are these rules open to interpretation - it seems that some caches would be approved by one person and not another

will the rules of the game be updated to keep up with a rapidly growing and changing sport?

are any other areas experiencing a moving target with respect to cache approval

I'd be interested in some constructive dialogue around these questions.

I love the smell of tupperware in the morning...it smells like victory

9.1k · March 11, 2003

"It's deja vu all over again."

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

I was formerly employed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but I don't work there anymore.

6.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The Leprechauns:
http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=6770936793&m=6390994555

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

I was formerly employed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but I don't work there anymore.

Nice Lep, but this thread might be more useful (Jump right to March 2nd for Jeremy's summary). Of course the MOST useful would have been just to hit the search button first........

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

March 11, 2003

Watch it --

I am the Cache Police and I am watching all of you!

--majicman

9.1k · March 11, 2003

The only thing more frightening than the thought of living in a police state is the thought of Majicman being the policeman.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

I was formerly employed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but I don't work there anymore.

1.5k · March 11, 2003

Stop whining under the guise of constructive dialog. You're not fooling ANYBODY.

March 11, 2003

All I have noticed is a reasonable crackdown on lame virtuals. Yes, "lame" is defined by the individual approver. All fine by me.

-WR

"Besides physical caches, we have VIRTUal and VIRTUeless."

March 11, 2003

I am not whining - you will note that I asked some specific questions. I was hoping for some serious dialogue.

Yes I did read the other threads and I was hoping that this one would be somewhat constructive instead of deteriorating into a pi#@ing match.

I love the smell of tupperware in the morning...it smells like victory

March 11, 2003

quote:
I am the Cache Police and I am watching all of you!

This is one cop I'd run from. How hard would it be to outrun a guy wearing high heels?

When GPSr's are outlawed, only Outlaws will have GPSr's.

6.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Curious George:
Yes I did read the other threads and I was hoping that this one would be somewhat constructive instead of deteriorating into a pi#@ing match.

Most of your questions were mentioned in those other posts, except maybe the number of approvers. I can think of maybe a dozen or so I know of, but does the actual number matter?

most of your answers

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
This is a long thread, so I'll summarize what I'm seeing in this discussion. Hopefully I can respond to most of the observations, suggestions, and issues that have come up here.

If you respond to my post, do not quote pieces of it and respond to it. Put together a concise response and summarize with your own words.

1. Restricting users to a locality / charging for membership / modifying the sport somehow.

Ain't gonna happen. This comes up once in a while and I will always point back to the vow that the Geocaching sport will never be "pay for play" on Geocaching.com - The nay sayers have responded that member only caches go against this philosophy but it is an empty argument.

You will always be able to search by radius and get all the caches in that area. New features will allow more precise searching.

It does cost money to run a site that gets 12 million pageviews a month so we look at alternative methods to fund the site. No we're not about to go under either. If we were, however, we would work on a transition plan to ensure that the sport continues.

As an aside, when someone creates a hypothetical argument like shutting down accounts where you can only search within xx radius from your home coordinates, that doesn't mean it is going to happen. Sometimes hypothetical situations grow horns and end up charging the china store.

2. Geocaching.com != Geocaching

This is a fun debate. Is Geocaching.com geocaching, or is it a database of geocaches only? "Having a sport managed under one man will be the death of us all!" is the cry from the masses.

If this was a dictatorship, do you really think the site would be successful? Heck, dissent on Geocaching.com even goes in the forums hosted by Geocaching.com.

A while back the early group of geocachers made the issue that Geocaching.com does not own geocaching. I cede that argument. However that means that since there is no ownership of geocaching by geocaching.com, we have the right to create guidelines for geocaches listed _on our own web site_. We also have the right to determine "quality" within our own limitations that we cannot physically visit each cache and ensure that it meets a checklist.

The admins have a hard job to weed out the signal to noise ratio. You would be horribly naive to think, however, that opening up geocaching to allow whatever listings people want on the site would be beneficial to the sport. At this point we'd have about a gazillion store caches, tennis ball caches, golf ball caches, "lets watch this carcass rot over time" caches, metal detector caches, buried caches, porn caches, ad nauseum.

The continuing movement of the web site is to have regional approvers from geocaching organizations around the world. This is a new sport, however, and both technology needs to be modified and organizations need to be formed to police their own areas. The ultimate goal is for each region to have a "committee" to decide on the rules of geocaching in their areas.

Again, I want to stress that this is a new activity and perhaps the first outdoor activity that has an online component. As a result there will be obvious growing pains. Hopefully folks will retain a level head about it all.

3. The original discussion about a microcache with no logbook.

This discussion/thread was absolutely insane. An admin has a discussion with a geocacher to verify some information about a cache, and make some recommendations. Not just an admin either, but Moun10bike, a guy who has been playing the sport just as long as I have been running the site. Then everyone jumps on and offers their own advice without the understanding of the entire situation.

How about instead of having a pity party you just try to work it out with Moun10bike, and give him the respect he deserves? The fact that there would be so much venom and time wasted over the placement of a film canister really blows perspective out of the water.

Understand that if you do disagree with the decision of a cache, you can always post your dissent in the forums. However, in this case there wasn't an outright permanent archival of a cache. All I'm asking is to have a little patience and benefit of the doubt for Moun10bike and the rest of the admins who are working in the best interests of the sport.

4. Rules and Guidelines

We call them guidelines because they aren't rules. They are guidelines. Geocaching.com is not a courtroom. The reason why they are guidelines is because the sport is very fluid and organic.

Guidelines also make it harder to make decisions, and in most cases the different admins with different backgrounds make a judgement call on the approval or disapproval of a cache. For this ireason there is a way for someone to "appeal" a "ruling" if they so choose, which would have happened here if the cache was actually disapproved.

Obviously red tape would suck. For example, make a designated approver go out and physically find the cache and rate it before approval. Logistically it is impossible. So we do the next best thing.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

1.4k · March 11, 2003

These sound like reasonable questions to me. Why can't they just be answered in a straight-forward manner? Is there some secret agenda taking place at cg.com that inhibits everyone to know what the requirements of placing a cache are?

I've been in the forums in the last several weeks and have noticed that there seems to be an increase in rejected caches. Can we possibly see a few examples of these rejected caches?

Why are there no 'set' rules for placing a cache? Without them, it makes it very difficult and frustrating to place a cache. I think people have a right to know where they stand when placing a cache instead of being left to the whim of an admin who is having a bad day and doesn't like the way a cache description is presented.

Why shouldn't we all know who the admin are? Is there something to hide here?

Who has approved or rejected your cache?

I'm interested in finding out what's going on here.

-----

24.7k · March 11, 2003

+ how many "approvers" are there?

There is a page that says how many approvers there are. There are not that many. I've "Met" 3 on my caches. ~Eric~ Has rejected more than one of my caches and I've managed to work with him on them and get them approved. Looking back I can't say that he was wrong on any of his concerns, though I still had some things to learn.

+ do they have a set of criteria that the rest of us don't know about?

Nope, it's all in these pages. 0.1 miles to the nearest cache has evolved into a rule and I'm not sure it's on the rules page yet, and there are exceptions to that rule.

+ are these rules open to interpretation - it seems that some caches would be approved by one person and not another

Probably. First of all one of the rules is that the rules are flexible. That does mean though that each admin has to try to work with guidelines and yet allow the flexibilty. Each admin probably has a different view of 'flexable' and what a good cache is and when the rules should give a little. That's human nature.

+ will the rules of the game be updated to keep up with a rapidly growing and changing sport?

Yes, but change is relative. A donut cache for the first cop to find it isn't a great new catagory. Locationless though was a great idea and deserving of it's own catagory (though some disagree)

+ are any other areas experiencing a moving target with respect to cache approval

There seems to be a spate of disapprovals all around that have cachers wondering what's up. You are not alone and not all the ones I know of appeared here in these forums as a topic. With all the discussion it would be worth nailing down some things that caused confusion.

Wherever you go there you are.

March 11, 2003

OK - now were're getting somewhere. I do like the idea of regional cache approvers or committees - now, how do we go about having something like that actually happen?

I love the smell of tupperware in the morning...it smells like victory

1.1k · March 11, 2003

Instead of vague accusations and criticisms, if a cache is disapproved and you think it should have been, post a description of it to the forums and see what others think. If you're currently chatting about a cache with an approver and it hasn't been turn down yet, you're hurting your case by posting your irritation in the forums.

There are x number of approvers.

They rely on the criteria on the guideline page. Common sense is also applied.

Yes. Rules are always open to interpretation.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

5.9k · March 11, 2003

quote:

how many "approvers" are there?

You'd have to ask someone like Jeremy. None of us in the forums will have that answer.

quote:
do they have a set of criteria that the rest of us don't know about?

I believe they do

quote:
are these rules open to interpretation - it seems that some caches would be approved by one person and not another

Probably

quote:
will the rules of the game be updated to keep up with a rapidly growing and changing sport?

We all hope so. I hope they are finally put in one location.

quote:
are any other areas experiencing a moving target with respect to cache approval

We go over and over and over this. Please search for the other threads(s) on this same topic. I think the gist of it is this; we don't need any (more) lame-o caches. We don't need any caches that cause Jeremy to get angry emails. And we don't need any geocaches that might jeopardize the game. Remember, the foundation is very weak; we have approval from too few “land managers” for the ones that are out there.

EDIT: Too slow typing, Jeremy got his in first...

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

6.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
I've been in the forums in the last several weeks and have noticed that there seems to be an increase in rejected caches. Can we possibly see a few examples of these rejected caches?

-----

Well, I'll assume you missed the other threads with various examples you seek, so I'll mention a few *I* remember mentioned in the past few weeks. I'm not gonna go back and look them all up, so these wont be word for word.

A "cache" that was a dead animal rotting in the woods. Finders were to post pics to show how the decompostion progressed.

A tennis ball tossed in the woods.

A string of micro caches that were all but tossed out a car window on a cross country drive. Some were on private property. Most had offensive names and a link to a generally offensive website. The hider admitted he had no intention of maintaining them.

A magnet stuck to something. Not a micro, just a magnet. This was a "virtual cache.

A loctionless cache where you had to log a fire hydrant.

Those a few that come to mind, I'm sure many can add to that list.

The person who approves your cache is listed at the bottom of the page. They post in the forums. Most of them are listed on a webpage.the idea that approvers are hiding is crazy. Again, from just reading the forums I can name maybe 10-12 of them.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

1.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

-----

Well, I'll assume you missed the other threads with various examples you seek, so I'll mention a few *I* remember mentioned in the past few weeks. I'm not gonna go back and look them all up, so these wont be word for word...

I don't think that anyone is contesting these ridiculously stupid caches. It's the one's where there is actually some merit.

I'll assume that you've been reading the forums and know that there are a number of caches not being approved that are not even close to being in the same category as the ones you've referred to.

-----

1k · March 11, 2003

Don't foprget the one where that guy tried to submit a locationless whose goal was to find a tupperware or ammo box in the woods filled with McToys. Where do we get these people?

If carrots are so good for the eyes, how come I see so many dead rabbits on the highway?

6.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

I don't think that anyone is contesting these ridiculously stupid caches. It's the one's where there is actually some merit.

I'll assume that you've been reading the forums and know that there are a number of caches not being approved that are not even close to being in the same category as the ones you've referred to.

-----

Ok, lets see, I can think of some that were not that extreme, of course. All those I can think of didn't meet the current guidelines the admins are using when submitted. I think these guidelines have been all been mentioned in those previous threads, even if not updated yet on the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines page. Of those, most were or could have been approved with minor changes. One a hider was asked to add a logbook. Not that big a deal, but the hider made a huge stink in the forums. If you can point to a cache mentioned here that met all the guidelines and still was not posted, point it out, I don't remember it.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

March 11, 2003

Some of the questions being raised by myself and others go beyond the simple approval or rejection of individual caches.

All I am trying to do is to start an open dialogue about some of these "big picture" issues that seem to keep coming up over and over again. There tends to be a lot of discussion around certain issues, and then the threads slowly die away with little actual progress being made.

Maybe I should have just started with these questions;

What is the best way to address some of the "big picture" issues that keep coming up? When, where and how can we open the lines of communcications to include input from as many people as possible? What is the best arena (forum) for these discussions to take place?

Thanks for listening, I'm not whining and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone - I want to see this sport grow and evolve as much as anyone else out there.

And yes I totally agree that the rediculous type of caches mentioned about have no place on the site.

I love the smell of tupperware in the morning...it smells like victory

6.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Curious George:
Some of the questions being raised by myself and others go beyond the simple approval or rejection of individual caches.

All I am trying to do is to start an open dialogue about some of these "big picture" issues that seem to keep coming up over and over again. There tends to be a lot of discussion around certain issues, and then the threads slowly die away with little actual progress being made.

I think the previous threads were a good start. I think Jeremy stated is best when he said

quote:
4. Rules and Guidelines

We call them guidelines because they aren't rules. They are guidelines. Geocaching.com is not a courtroom. The reason why they are guidelines is because the sport is very fluid and organic.

Guidelines also make it harder to make decisions, and in most cases the different admins with different backgrounds make a judgement call on the approval or disapproval of a cache. For this ireason there is a way for someone to "appeal" a "ruling" if they so choose, which would have happened here if the cache was actually disapproved.

Obviously red tape would suck. For example, make a designated approver go out and physically find the cache and rate it before approval. Logistically it is impossible. So we do the next best thing.

You still haven't given any examples of these "Big Picture Issues" you mention. Nor have you pointed to any caches that raise these issues. This is a good as place as any to debate them, but we need to know just what you want to debate first. Your topic is "What are the rules?". The guidelines used to approve caches were all pointed out to you. What other issues do you still have?

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

March 11, 2003

OK - here's 2 to start:

How do users go about bringing forward suggestions for changes/enhancements to the current guidelines? Will these discussions be open for input from everyone?
If a cache is rejected, is there a formal appeal process or is it just a matter of trying to work it out with the original approver? Should there be an formal appeal process?

I love the smell of tupperware in the morning...it smells like victory

6.5k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Curious George:
If a cache is rejected, is there a formal appeal process or is it just a matter of trying to work it out with the origianal approver? Should there be an formal appeal process?

Yes, after discussing with the approver and you cant compromise, then ask about it in this forum. But BE polite, don't bash the approver and don't insult people that don't agree you cache should be approved. If you just want to whine, do it elsewhere.

As for a formal process, how is that different than posting to the forums?

There used to be a 'special' forum where the admins could place caches they wanted feedback about. Im not sure why this was discontinued, but its basically the same as posting to any other forum.

March 11, 2003

Answer 1: The only way to open a dialoge and discuss a specific criterion for cache validity is in this forum right here. Perhaps since it is a question of guidelines, the Geocaching.com Discussion room would be the best place to plead your case.

Answer 2: I would specifically argue to the approver first. If there is no change, then "Appeal to Jeremy!" I've never had anything that had to go that far. I had to explain a Virtual once, and previously, Jeremy questioned the safety of a cache I participated in placing. After a through explanation, he continued to allow it.

For the most part, the Groundspeak Crew is fair. If they say No, explain. If not, then go back to the drawing board.

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

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

6.4k · March 11, 2003

You still have not read the previous threads on this, have you?

Both questions have been answered plenty of times.

quote:
Originally posted by Curious George:
+ How do users go about bringing forward suggestions for changes/enhancements to the current guidelines? Will these discussions be open for input from everyone?

Post them right here in the forums. Best bet is to give it a descriptive topic. State your ideas clearly, without bashing or insulting. Use specific examples, and state how these changes will be for the good of geocaching. Don't get pissed just because some will of course disagree. The great thing here is even though Groundspeak owns the sandbox, they have always been willing and open to changes most of the community feels is for the better.

quote:
Originally posted by Curious George:
If a cache is rejected, is there a formal appeal process or is it just a matter of trying to work it out with the original approver? Should there be an formal appeal process?

Again, post to the forums. Since the cache was not approved, we can not see the cache page, so linking to it does us no good. Provide us with the cache description, location, and the reason the approver gave for declining the cache. Please review the guidelines, and tell us why you believe your cache complies with the rules. Pointing to old caches that are similar does no good, old caches are grandfathered as the guidelines evolve. Please don't bash the approver, or leave out half the story to make your case look better. If you do, you can bet you will be called out on it, and that only weakens your case. Again, plenty will probably disagree, but try to stay civil and on topic.

As TPTB often state, the guidelines are still fluid, and may very well change from one week to the next as the sport grows and events warrant. It's very possible if you make a good argument for why your cache should stand, the guidelines will flex or change to allow it.

How's that for a start?

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

8.9k · March 11, 2003

Your formal appeal process is right here - AFTER you have tried to work it out with the approver. If - after a few e-mails back and forth with the approver - you still feel your cache is warranted, THEN post the description in the forums, and see what others think.

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

March 11, 2003

Thanks Mopar - I will go through the old threads again tonight as there may have been posts added since the last time I had a look.

I just wanted to start some friendly dialogue and it worked, for the most part.

It is funny to see how I was never confrontational at all, yet others introduced phrases like;

accusations and criticisms
argue to the approver
bash the approver

Hmmm, no point there, just an interesting perspective.

I love the smell of tupperware in the morning...it smells like victory

March 11, 2003

Very interesting perspective.

6.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Curious George:
It is funny to see how I was never confrontational at all, yet others introduced phrases like;

+ accusations and criticisms+ argue to the approver+ bash the approver

Hmmm, no point there, just an interesting perspective.

I just want to be clear, no you were not confrontational at all.

I was very careful to add those things though, for 2 reasons. First, because most of the times these things DO come to discussion, they start out with "Some @#$% approver thinks hes a geogod and is out to get me!". Just trying to head this off at the pass for the next reason;

Just like cache logs, almost every thread here will (hopefully) survive for future cachers to see and reference. The next time someone posts "what are the rules", they will most likely be directed to this thread, among others. Maybe, just maybe, it will help calm down the next person who is hot under the collar because his cache was denied.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

1.4k · March 11, 2003

I'm just wondering if you are an admin because your posts seem very authoritive.

In light of your suggestion of how to go about discussing topics, and the lack of a concise reply to my question of who the admins are, I've posted a new thread to discuss who the admins are.

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on March 11, 2003 at 02:12 PM.]

March 11, 2003

Ah, great point Mopar.

We're all in this sport for the same thing (well most of us) and we need to work together as it goes through it's growing pains.

Open dialogue in a non-confrontational setting is the best way to accomplish this. Finger pointing and name calling solves nothing, in fact it usually has the opposite effect.

So if I can be so bold as to wrap up my own thread, here goes:

if you have a problem getting a cache approved post specifics in the forums
if you need clarification about a particular guideline post a question in the forums
gather feedback and opinions from other cachers
if your cache is reasonable it will likely be approved
you may be able to work with the approvers to make small changes to get your cache approved
don't post rediculous caches
don't be rude

That's it for now - keep smiling everyone

I love the smell of tupperware in the morning...it smells like victory

1.4k · March 11, 2003

Oops. Duplicate post.

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on March 12, 2003 at 01:30 AM.]

24.7k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Curious George:
OK - here's 2 to start:

+ How do users go about bringing forward suggestions for changes/enhancements to the current guidelines? Will these discussions be open for input from everyone?+ If a cache is rejected, is there a formal appeal process or is it just a matter of trying to work it out with the original approver? Should there be an formal appeal process?

I love the smell of tupperware in the morning...it smells like victory

You should work it out with the admin who 'rejected your cache'. As has been mentioned before a rejecting is often a means of saying "this cache isn't cut and dry and needs more information before approval". Normally the admin will post a note to the cache or email you with their particular question or issue.

If you still don't like the answer feel free to post the cache on the forums. Odds are 9 times out of 10 that an unapprovd cache will get the forum version of the gladitor thumbs down.

Wherever you go there you are.

20.7k · March 11, 2003

Mopar-

Thanks for re-posting Jeremy's comments. I missed them the first time around. I guess I had given up on that other thread before he posted.

6.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
Mopar, are you an admin?

I'm just wondering if you are an admin because your posts seem very authoritive.

In light of your suggestion of how to go about discussing topics, and the lack of a concise reply to my question of who the admins are, I've posted a new thread http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=9900917555&r=9900917555#9900917555

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on March 11, 2003 at 02:12 PM.]

No, I am not, but I play one on tv!

Seriously, I am not an admin here, but have held that position elsewhere, so I guess maybe that gives me a little insight. I also do talk to a few fairly often, so I hear what they go thru. It's a thankless job, they do it for the love of geocaching, they don't even get free charter membership. They take all the flack and abuse when someones cache is declined, yet rarely a thank you from the cacher who gets an approval 3hrs after posting a new cache. I did sorta skirt your question earlier about naming the approvers, for a reason. While some of them are very public and open about it (Erik, Mtn-Man, Seth, Davros, for example) others prefer to keep a low profile and just do their job. They have enough of a workload just reviewing new caches. Some of the more outspoken regular users have mentioned often getting dozens of emails out of the blue, some truly bizarre, because of comments they make in the forums. Can you imagine how many the approvers must get sometimes? Really, the only approver that matters to you is the one working on your cache. If the other approvers wish to keep a low profile, I can respect that. Thats why I only mentioned the approvers listed on the "about geocaching.com" page in your other thread. They are already publicly listed. If any other approvers wish to be "outed" that should be their choice.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

March 11, 2003

My caches get approved within the hour.

No complaints from me.

1.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Mopar wrote:
Really, the only approver that matters to you is the one working on your cache.

I don't think so.

The approvers have the most influence (next to Jeremy) over how the site is run and the guidelines and policies are set up, therefore they're opinions in the forums carry more weight over others.

Knowing that an opinion is coming from a person who is in a position of authority certainly makes a difference.

-----

6.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

The approvers have the most influence (next to Jeremy) over how the site is run and the guidelines and policies are set up, therefore they're opinions in the forums carry more weight over others.

Knowing that an opinion is coming from a person who is in a position of authority certainly makes a difference.

-----

I thought thats the reason we had find counts, and registered dates, and number of forum posts!

Seriously, when it comes to cache approval discussions, you are correct, to some extent, but I've noticed that usually when they are posting something related to approval they do identify as one. If we are talking about something OTHER then cache approval, I don't think they carry anymore weight then anyone else. What I mean by that is they are on the same level as other experienced cachers. I would personally evaluate your opinion the same as an approver of the same experience (BTW: 90 finds in 3 winter months is pretty impressive!) in any other topic.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

1.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Mopar wrote:
If we are talking about something OTHER then cache approval, I don't think they carry anymore weight then anyone else.

They certainly do. Consider this, I am at a public event and need some assistance (doesn't matter for what), I see a policeman standing near a doorway -- who do I ask for assistance, an average Joe who is walking by, or the policeman?

Of course I ask the policeman because he is trained and qualified to assist me as a citizen. If I have a serious question about caching, I'd much rather be discussing it with someone who is directly in the know than someone who is just trying to come up with smart-a$$ quips all the time.

I do recognize that there a number of cachers on this board who have valid views and opinions about the issues that are being discussed and I very much appreciate and respect thier opinions. Regardless of this however, I would take a comment from an admin in the forums a lot more seriously than most others as the admins have the inside track on what's going on with guidelines, etc.

-----

6.4k · March 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Mopar wrote:
If we are talking about something OTHER then cache approval, I don't think they carry anymore weight then anyone else.

They certainly do. Consider this, I am at a public event and need some assistance (doesn't matter for what), I see a policeman standing near a doorway -- who do I ask for assistance, an average Joe who is walking by, or the policeman?

Of course I ask the policeman because he is trained and qualified to assist me as a citizen. If I have a serious question about caching, I'd much rather be discussing it with someone who is directly _in the know_ than someone who is just trying to come up with smart-a$$ quips all the time.

I do recognize that there a number of cachers on this board who have valid views and opinions about the issues that are being discussed and I very much appreciate and respect their opinions. Regardless of this however, I would take a comment from an admin in the forums a lot more seriously than most others as the admins have the _inside track_ on what's going on with guidelines, etc.

-----

I consider the cache approval guideline part of the approvers expertise, yes, but that doesn't go for every geocache related topic. If I wanted to know about GPX pocket queries, I would place more value in what guys like ClayJar, RobertLipe, Fizzy, and others over what Mtn-Man or Erik had to say. Just like if my car was not running right, I would place more confidence in the answers I got from Bob the mechanic then from that policeman standing in the doorway.

Mtn-Man is a cache approver, but his opinion on the Garmin Gecko doen't mean as much to me as Kerry's.

I doubt any of the approvers have any more insight then you or I to topics like "automatic Renewal Thru Paypal", how I can make my own cache chart,"why cachers quit the game", how to make a laminated paper geocoin or a fake tree stump cache, or what rechargable batteries are best to buy. Do you?

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

7.2k · March 11, 2003

This started as a constructive discussion. Most posts have dealt with the issues. I think Jeremy said it best in answering the original post...

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
Instead of vague accusations and criticisms, if a cache is disapproved and you think it should have been, post a description of it to the forums and see what others think. If you're currently chatting about a cache with an approver and it hasn't been turn down yet, you're hurting your case by posting your irritation in the forums.

There are x number of approvers.

They rely on the criteria on the guideline page. Common sense is also applied.

Yes. Rules are always open to interpretation.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Suddenly we are on some sort of crusade to weed out the admins. So what if some of them want to remain anonymous? What's the big deal with that? I did for many months. So what? If you have an issue with a particular admin who has worked on your cache, then you can email them. The name is right on the cache.

I will say this, though. Admins have no final decision making authority on the site. It is all up to Jeremy and his crew. We can make suggestions (just like you can) and we can ask for changes (just like you can). We can archive caches, yes. But... Jeremy is the final arbiter on all issues. We discuss guidelines, but we follow the lead that he gives us. I have archived a cache once and the cacher appealed to Jeremy. He unarchived it and Jeremy wrote me and told me why. No problem for me, and the Geocacher got his cache.

I guess the one thing that makes me feel good is that there are tens of thousands of happy Geocachers out there that just enjoy playing the game and enjoy playing within the guidelines.

AND... while the Gecko 101 and 201 are neat little toys, I still think I would prefer my little yellow el cheapo eTrex (my first GPS) to the 101, and I will always love my Vista with its ability to store and display topomaps in the GPSR. I guess the new Geckos could be good entry level GSPRs.

1.4k · March 12, 2003

quote:
mtn-man wrote:
Suddenly we are on some sort of crusade to weed out the admins. So what if some of them want to remain anonymous? What's the big deal with that? I did for many months. So what? If you have an issue with a particular admin who has worked on your cache, then you can email them. The name is right on the cache.

This IS NOT about any specific issue with an admin.

Admins are representatives of the site and as such their postings in the forums will obviously be better informed or more accurate than most as they are no doubt privy to the latest concerns and policies of the website.

I don't see the need for the secrecy of who the admins are. If they are concerned about being bothered with an excess of member complaints then it's obvious to me that the problem lies elsewhere.

Perhaps if the guidelines (or rules or whatever name you want to give them) were more clearly defined, the admins would not receive as much negative feedback as everyone would know what is and is not allowed.

Anyway you look at it, admins are representatives of the site and the sport and should be identified as such.

-----

6.5k · March 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
This IS NOT about any specific issue with an admin.

Admins are representatives of the site and as such their postings in the forums will obviously be better informed or more accurate than most as they are no doubt privy to the latest concerns and policies of the website.

At risk of being flamed for claiming the Admins. don't know anything (which i'm not!).

Why are you assuming the Admins are going to know everything about everything?

quote:
I don't see the need for the secrecy of who the admins are. If they are concerned about being bothered with an excess of member complaints then it's obvious to me that the problem lies elsewhere.

What Secrecy?? Just because theres no big bulleye on every Admin. doesn't mean they are hiding...

If you want to know who approved your caches, log in and look at the bottom of the page. If you want to know which admins are on the board, go to the main forum page and look at the bottom, the admins are bolded.

quote:
Anyway you look at it, admins are representatives of the site and the sport and should be identified as such.

Why? What are you going to say or not say to an Admin. that would not otherwise say?

If you're thinking about threads concerning some 'offical' process, seems like the admins. state they are such when posting to those threads.

1.4k · March 12, 2003

Welch,

Perhaps you should read my post more carefully before posting a reply.

I did not say that admins know everything, I said that they are better informed. There is a big difference.

There is a level of secrecy. There have been a few posts in this thread and in this other thread saying that some admins want their identity to be unknown. And not all admins have their name in bold on the main forum page.

It's not a matter of what I'm going to say or not going to say to an admin -- it's what they say to the readers of the forum. And no, they don't all state they are admins when speaking of "official' processes.

-----

6.4k · March 12, 2003

You guys are now confusing site admins and cache approvers. The only way an approver is any different then any other geocacher is they get to see caches before they are published on the site, and decide if they meet the guidelines or not. They have no caching superpowers, they don't know anything more about the site then what is involved with approving caches. They do not show up in bold in the list of users logged in. Those are site/forum admins(moderators). Most of the admins, aside from the ones employed by Groundspeak are just forum moderators. They get to edit or delete the post where I make fun of Leprechaun's pointy shoes, or the get rich quick post o' da week, but not much else. Some approvers may be admins too. Some of the admins work for Groundspeak, those would be about the only ones that really might have any inside info about geocaching.com in general.

I talk to a few of the cache approvers on a fairly regular basis, and trust me, I've posed the "pstt, between you and me, what's the real deal?" question on various subjects, and every single time the answer has been, "I'll find that out when everyone else does."

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

March 12, 2003

they are reasonable people. it doesn't matter what caches have been done before or where, what matters is what the local admin wants now. so find out first, then plan your cache.

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

1.6k · March 12, 2003

New Groundspeak rule, effective immediately:

You are allowed one forum post for each find.

You are allowed 10 forum posts for each hide.

You cannot borrow from tomorrow to speak for today.

And I am nearly over my limit!

canadazuuk

6.5k · March 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
I did not say that admins know everything, I said that they are better informed. There is a big difference.

Ok, then let me ask, better informed about what?

quote:
There is a level of secrecy. There have been a few posts in this thread and in saying that some admins want their identity to be unknown. And not all admins have their name in bold on the main forum page.

How is it a secret if they hide who they are on the bottom of every cache's page? Theres no big list, but so what, if they haven't approved my cache why do I need to know who they are?

quote:
It's not a matter of what I'm going to say or not going to say to an admin -- it's what they say to the readers of the forum. And no, they don't all state they are admins when speaking of "official' processes.

Ok thats fair I guess, but Jeremy's call still beats all hands, even the approvers.

7.2k · March 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
They have no caching superpowers...

We might... some of us do use the force.

2.6k · March 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

They certainly do. Consider this, I am at a public event and need some assistance (doesn't matter for what), I see a policeman standing near a doorway -- who do I ask for assistance, an average Joe who is walking by, or the policeman?

Wouldn't that depend on what kind of assistance you needed? What if you needed advice on picking a good wine to go with your meal? Would you automatically pick the policeman first?

It all depends on what you're asking.

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

What are the rules ???

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment