Bear & Ducky Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 As per request I've editied this post. A suggestion was made that approvers should have designated regional reporters to assist in the leg work they do. The perception is they do not and do a lot of work on their own. We have been told some do but I am not sure we can confirm they all do. Another related issue is having some method of identifying the regions being approved by each approver so us as cachers know who our approvers are, rather than me just assuming Canada has 2 and not knowing for sure. The rest below is what I originally had but this hopefully clears up the thread. quote: quote:Originally posted by Bear & Ducky: Great idea, any approver thoughts? This is a place for suggestions. Once the suggestions have been gathered together, we can debate on them. Otherwise the point of this topic will be lost to a sea of debates on individual suggestions. If you want to create a topic specifically debating this suggestion, feel free to post it. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Okay so here we have it...now...any approvers care to comment on the idea of using reporters to check into caches as an alternative to having more approvers. Or for that matter any other ideas and debate to assist localized issues. Please reference thread below for previous discussion: http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=40160869&p=4 Keith Bear & Ducky [This message was edited by Bear & Ducky on October 22, 2003 at 09:39 AM.] Quote Link to comment
+woodsters Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 My idea of the reporters was apparently shot down by Jeremy in another thread. He would rather not deal with the issue and let the organizations deal with them....At least that's what I gathered. Brian www.woodsters.com "TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it... Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Thank you for starting a separate thread to discuss this suggestion. This is already being done, at least in my approval territory, as well as by many of the other approvers and by regional/state/local geocaching organizations. I review caches in an area bounded by Columbus, Ohio to the west, the Pennsylvania border to the North, the New Jersey border to the east, and the northern part of West Virginia to the South. I have found hundreds of geocaches within that area, and in all corners of it. I've attended events all over that area to get to know the local geocachers. I believe I have a good knowledge of the area where I do approval work. Notwithstanding this, I have a network of "reporters" or "helpers" who assist me when there are any issues with a cache. Their help takes many forms, including, for example: Retrieving archived caches which we know are still in place, in order to reduce 'geo-litter' (five examples within the past six weeks) Working with a state park by meeting with the park manager to get permits for the caches in that park, and to discuss future cache placements (3 examples within the past 3 months) Working with a local land manager to develop geocaching placement guidelines, which are then reported back to me so that I can ensure compliance (3 examples in the past 5 months) Contacting leaders of the local caving community to be sure that a geocache placement in a cave would not cause problems with the cavers (within the past month) These are just examples. I know that, within days of a request from me, one of my helpers can investigate a problem in Columbus, Cleveland, Akron, Erie, Pittsburgh, Greensburg/Uniontown/Johnstown, State College, Harrisburg, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, York, Lancaster, or Philadelphia. While I've hunted caches in each of these areas, a helper can get there quicker and may have additional knowledge to assist with the issue. I don't perceive a need to formalize these arrangements. They are already in place and functioning. I hope it helps readers of this thread to know just how much hard work goes on behind the scenes. EDIT: For clarification, this explanation is NOT meant to suggest that caches are to be physically 'checked' prior to being listed on the website. I use my helpers for dealing with known problems only. |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" [This message was edited by Keystone Approver on October 22, 2003 at 09:30 AM.] Quote Link to comment
+Ashandes Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:My idea of the reporters was apparently shot down by Jeremy in another thread. He would rather not deal with the issue and let the organizations deal with them....At least that's what I gathered. What exactly are these reporters checking? Can you flesh out the idea a little? One thing to keep in mind is that approvers don't get paid, but willingly give up their time. However, to physically check caches requires resources other than time. I can understand Grounspeak being reluctant to take on the administrative burden of compensating volunteers financially. ________________________ What is caches precious? Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 What is this topic about? Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Quote Link to comment
+woodsters Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Team AshandEs, the idea was one for their to be something added to the "hide a cache page" that the hider agrees that the archived caches can be removed by a person representing the website GC.com if not done so by the owner themselves. To follow up on that, the person representing the site should be something formally, rather than someone an approver will just ask. At least recognized by geocaching.com. My idea was to assign "reporters" for more localized areas. Approvers are approving caches a good distance away and it's not feasable for them to go and remove caches themselves as they could as a representative of the website. Reporters would be assigned to their areas and the approvers would know who they are. When a problem arises, they call upon that reporter to do the ground work for them. This would also help in instances when there is a debate of placing a cache as well. A reporter can check things out locally and report his or her findings to the approver. Brian www.woodsters.com "TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it... Quote Link to comment
Bear & Ducky Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 I think the role behind a reporter would be to assist the approvers so that they do not have to spend a small fortune doing every cache in their area of approval. Keystone, I applaud the work you've described. If I thought for a second or had any indication that this was being done in our area I might not have so much contempt. We do have other forums where for instance Cache-Tech says he's dealing with parks people in Quebec and Ontario. Those provinces are huge, and he is one person. I have not heard from anyone where he has been involving anyone besides himself to take on this task. Beyond that the general perception is that there are few approvers here and few helping them. That seems like it may be a false perception but how do we fix it so people do not assume there is noone out there? I think one suggestion was to have the approvers listed someone (yes anonymous accounts for them are fine for this) that gives us an idea of where their boundaries are. This allows us to realize how much work they have to do and appreciate the efforts even more. On top of it I think there should be a formalized policy to use assistants/reporters because if there is then maybe the less vetern admins will realize they should and have to use help versus assuming the don't and taking it all upon themselves. I don't know, maybe you can certify that every single one of them does as much as you to help validate or support caches. Maybe I am completly unaware (I'm sure I am since its not published) but telling us and publishing these boundaries the approvers run will go a long way to clearing up situations where were working in the dark trying to fix things that are already fixed. Keith (Its lunch I think I've rambled enough and have to get to work so until later tonight I suppose.) Bear & Ducky Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Can you edit your original post so people don't feel like they came in to a topic in progress? Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Quote Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Keystone Approver:I don't perceive a need to formalize these arrangements. They are already in place and functioning. I hope it helps readers of this thread to know just how much hard work goes on behind the scenes. I read this topic's original post, and though unclear I figured that it might be regarding what Keystone is talking about. Keystone's explaination was outstanding, and we have indeed been doing this for some time. I think this is a non-issue. mtn-man... admin brick mason "approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors Quote Link to comment
Bear & Ducky Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Jeremy:What is this topic about? Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Its about the suggestion of using reporters or assistants to help approvers which in turn may streamline the processes at gc.com and give more regional contact. Reporters/assistants would not approve anything but would provide reports and details as a formal function to approvers. Such that they should be selected by their region by the approver of that area and formally drafted into things as a volunteer. No changes are required to the gc.com site except if you want a private forum for reporters to discuss with approvers since they would have no elevated rights. Should a dispute between a cache placer and approver occur the reporter could also be asked to make a report to the approvers in general as a non biased party simply showing and confirming the facts about the placement of the cache(s). Thats what i think this thread is about. Keith Bear & Ducky Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:Thats what i think this thread is about. So edit your topic starter. See Team GPSaxophone's thread on a good example of a proper way to branch a thread into another topic. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Quote Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 B&D, I'm still unclear on your post. It sounds like you are talking about associations. The GA Geocachers Assn (GGA) deals with state and local issues. What you need to do is form an organization. Is that what you are talking about? mtn-man... admin brick mason "approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I though the previous discussion was only allowing reviewers to approve caches that are within 150 (or whatever) miles of them. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Quote Link to comment
+Criminal Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Is something broken? I dunno, but there sure seems to be a lot of “fixing” going on… http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/ Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:As per request I've editied this post. Who are you talking to? Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Quote Link to comment
Bear & Ducky Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by mtn-man:B&D, I'm still unclear on your post. It sounds like you are talking about associations. The GA Geocachers Assn (GGA) deals with state and local issues. What you need to do is form an organization. Is that what you are talking about? No that is not it, I'm talking about gc.com making it policy if it is not already to have foot soldiers for the approvers rather than adding more approvers to get more regional/localized support. As far as starting associations, I'm one of the outspoken ones locally working on setting up SOGA (Southern Ontario Geocaching Association) Which is why I've said in other threads my comments are not to hurt gc.com but to work with it. Otherwise spearheading an association would be pointless Keith... Now really late to leave for work...being a partner I can afford to be late but not often so will reply more later I suppose. Bear & Ducky Quote Link to comment
Bear & Ducky Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Jeremy: quote:Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:As per request I've editied this post. Who are you talking to? Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Everyone in general. Directly as a response to you.... Bear & Ducky Quote Link to comment
Bear & Ducky Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Jeremy:I though the previous discussion was only allowing reviewers to approve caches that are within 150 (or whatever) miles of them. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Last quick note... Yes it did, but that seemed to get no response other than being unrealistic...if thats possible it would be better, but this is a compromised suggestion given in the last thread that maybe all parties could agree on. Bear & Ducky Quote Link to comment
+Touchstone Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 IMHO, KA's right. It should be a point for local control to take up these issues, not GC.com. Got a problem with a local approver, start a geocaching chapter in your area. Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching. Quote Link to comment
umc Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:I think the role behind a reporter would be to assist the approvers so that they do not have to spend a small fortune doing every cache in their area of approval. Is this suggesting that each and every cache be physically reviewed before being approved? I sure hope not as that would be very very bad. Example: John submits a cache today and waits for the above process to take place. John gets an email a year later letting him know his cache was approved. MiGO __________________________ Caching with a clue.... Quote Link to comment
+trippy1976 Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 The best way to help local approvers: Get organized. mtn-man hit it on the head there. Our MI group is not as old and venerable as the GA coutnerpart, but having the organization has reaped many benefits with parks systems and within the community. A close-knit community results in people helping people. Which includes your regional approvers. This creates and automatic checks and balances system. If an approver is running astray in our area, it wouldn't take long for gc.com and EVERYONE IN THE ORGANIZATION to hear about it. Ultimately, I think this is really a non-issue. Between the approver, the cachers, and TPTB, there are PLENTY of checks in place. I cannot believe there is this much distrust in geocaching that people feel someone NEEDS to visit every cache in the world before it becomes approved. If there is - the most constructive way to address it is to form an organization and to get to know other cachers in your area. After a while, you'll learn that in general - they're a good and honest group of folks. -------- trippy1976 - Team KKF2A Assimilating golf balls - one geocache at a time. Michigan Geocaching Organization Homepage Quote Link to comment
+woodsters Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 No umc...you and especially Jeremy are trying to downplay his thread to give it no merit. The idea is not to have a reporter doing the work for each cache, but to do the groundwork for the approvers when a cache is trying to placed and there is question about it and the surroundings. The reporters could also remove caches if there were a policy at GC (which there isn't). I'm done with it. It's Jeremy's call afterall and he has to put up with whateve may or may not happen. I'm just offering suggestions to make things simpler for the cachers and for the site in the long run. Adios Brian www.woodsters.com "TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it... Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:No umc...you and especially Jeremy are trying to downplay his thread to give it no merit. Absolutely not. What I would like to see is a topic that has clear and concise points that can be discussed. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Quote Link to comment
umc Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:No umc...you and especially Jeremy are trying to downplay his thread to give it no merit. Ouch, thats not fair. I posted once in this thread and by no means was it to "downplay" this thread. quote:Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:I think the role behind a reporter would be to assist the approvers so that they do not have to spend a small fortune doing every cache in their area of approval. This is what I read that I needed clarification on as it clearly states that each and every cache should be physically visited before being approved. I stated thats a bad idea and don't think its downplaying an idea. Is that the idea anyway? You said no. quote:Originally posted by Woodsters: The idea is not to have a reporter doing the work for each cache, but to do the groundwork for the approvers when a cache is trying to placed and there is question about it and the surroundings. That contradicts what I quoted above and again by no means was I "downplaying" someones comments or suggestions. MiGO __________________________ Caching with a clue.... Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Read the revised topic and I still don't get it. Quote Link to comment
+Touchstone Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Nice to see Guffus and Gallant back. Some of these threads are getting as dry as toast Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching. Quote Link to comment
+Bilder Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I think most of the approvers have a few geocachers in their territories that they email with questions from time to time. I have been contacted a couple times by an approver with questions about a new cache. I am glad to help out and if I dont know the answer, I probably know a local who does. Just because you dont hear about locals helping out an approver, does not mean it doesn't happen. I would wager that locals checking on things for an approver who may not live in the area goes on much more than you realize. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have never been lost. Been awful confused for a few days, but never lost! N61.12.041 W149.43.734 Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:Another related issue is having some method of identifying the regions being approved by each approver so us as cachers know who our approvers are, rather than me just assuming Canada has 2 and not knowing for sure. I noticed that you had edited your post to add this related issue. Somehow I suspect that this may actually be the driving reason behind your repeated posts on similar themes. To assist you, I can tell you that there are indeed two approvers, one for Eastern Canada and one for Western Canada, although sometimes other approvers will assist upon request. As correctly noted by GPSaxophone in another of today's active threads, approval territories are dictated not principally by political or geographic boundaries, but rather because of a combination of volume of caches placed and/or the need to deal with special land manager regulations within a political jurisdiction. As our sport grows, an approver who sees the volume of work increase to a level that's too high to keep up with will bring this issue to the attention of the admins. Then, a new admin can be added or the work allocations among the existing admins can be adjusted. This happens so frequently that any approval territory map becomes out-of-date almost instantly. To assist you in understanding the volume of work for the Canadian approvers vs. those elsewhere, consider the following statistics for all geocache submissions (including those not approved) during the two-month period from August 22 to October 22, 2003: Western Canada: Alberta 77, BC 120, Manitoba 12, NWT 4, Sask. 12 & Yukon 0, for a total of 225 cache submissions. Eastern Canada: NB 91, Newf. 19, NS 36, Ont. 211, PEI 3 and Quebec 30 for a total of 390 cache submissions. Compare these totals to mine, as a typical US regional approver: in the same period I had 309 cache submissions in PA, plus many more I handled in Ohio and West Virginia, plus my forum moderator duties. Or look at my neighbor, NJAdmin, who handled 119 approvals in tiny New Jersey, and 317 more in New York, during the same period. California had 1,001 submissions during these two months, which explains why the state has two resident approvers. These sample statistics illustrate that Canadian cache submissions receive the same or better individual attention and consideration as those handled in areas where an approver covers less square mileage. |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" Quote Link to comment
+Ashandes Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Criminal:http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/130036_5400.gif Is something broken? http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/130036_5500.gif I dunno, but there sure seems to be a lot of “fixing” going on… http://www.pelung.biz/_users_images/monk1.gif http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/ Very true! This got a laugh out of me. First time I've laughed at something in the forums in a couple of days. I think I need to stay out of threads with the word "aprove" or "approvers" in the topic. I think the low signal to noise ratio with respect to genuine concerns ends up frustrating both sides of a lot of issues. We all need to chill out now and thgen ________________________ What is caches precious? Quote Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Renegade Knight:Read the revised topic and I still don't get it. Boy, I'm glad is wasn't just me. Guys, I think "reporters" is the worst possible term you could choose. I keep imagining the guy from Channel 5 News trying to analyze caches. Keystone... EXCELLENT post. I have been thinking about running the numbers on that and I am glad you did. All you have to do is search the state or country and you can see the total number of caches. Canada has 5,414 total as of right now. California has 11,235. mtn-man... admin brick mason "approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors Quote Link to comment
+Cache-tech Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I am not sure what is wanted here either. Bear & Ducky, I apply the guidelines to everyone the same way, 1 find or 1000 finds. You want reporters? When I ask for extra infomation about a cache, I get, "What? I am not a new cacher! I know how to place a cache!" Now I can imagine if I email back, "Please hold while someone verifies that your cache meets the guidelines". I will email you if the need arises for your region. In one sense, you don't want more rules, on another you want more hands in the pot. If you have a problem with me, please email approvers@Groundspeak.com . I also invite you to post your cache submissions to the forum if you think I miss judged them. All I asked was that the guidelines be met and I did not disapprove your caches, you archived them before they were approved. Cache-tech Geocaching.com Admin Quote Link to comment
gm100guy Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Keystone, I applaud the work you've described. If I thought for a second or had any indication that this was being done in our area I might not have so much contempt. We do have other forums where for instance Cache-Tech says he's dealing with parks people in Quebec and Ontario. Those provinces are huge, and he is one person. I have not heard from anyone where he has been involving anyone besides himself to take on this task. Bear and Ducky should do some research before they make statements on the forum. Story of Ontario Parks and talking to the government Some of us have been working on this for over a year now and do a search on the Canada forum and you will find all the threads about this topic. Cache-Tech has been in contact with some of us and is working with us to help solve this issue. I hope now that he has come on board we can get a quicker respone from the Government. gm100guy http://members.rogers.com/gm100guy/cachepage.htm Ontario geocachers http://groups.msn.com/GeocachinginOntario/homepage Quote Link to comment
Bear & Ducky Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 Again a nother discussion to get side tracked...I've offered to have a new thread to this but people simply want to discuss it here. quote:Originally posted by Cache-tech:If you have a problem with me, please email approvers@Groundspeak.com . I also invite you to post your cache submissions to the forum if you think I miss judged them. If it was personal and I wanted to specifically say you were doing a bad job, I would I have not said your job is being done bad I have said the way these caches are now being approved or disapproved have changed in a way that appears to "us" like the approvers are either not interested in taking the time to interpret the caches and see if theres a way to work with them rather than saying "No it does not meet guidlines....do this and it gets approved" I think some of the cache ideas I've heard and been part of planning have some merit but there is never a half way. ( not just ones I post, I do discuss concepts that others have tried in private.) quote:All I asked was that the guidelines be met and I did not disapprove your caches, you archived them before they were approved. You didn't *Disapprove them* no, instead you simply told me if I changed them they would be approved. I think its obvious then that only if I change them to exactly what you wanted without any working or debate would I get them approved. Thus you disapproved them by default since there was no room for compromise and it didn't make sense to me to just up and dismiss the whole idea when its not that radical or unsafe or illegal or not fun. I also said that I was done with it and I'll admit you offered to work with them if I fixed them to your specs, but what you wouldn't do is work with me to see how they could fit for my concept. Something I had thought would happen in an evolving sport, you made some comment like: If I tried to do anything other than the guidlines I would get complaints and trouble. Yet in some thread Jeremy said as approvers your encouraged to consider all caches and use your judgement. Thus he's saying its possible to evolve and you basically told me no its not. Anyway as I said I'm done with it, I'm not here to make this a battle against you. We did that in private email. Keith Bear & Ducky Quote Link to comment
Bear & Ducky Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by gm100guy: Bear and Ducky should do some research before they make statements on the forum. http://groups.msn.com/GeocachinginOntario/homepage Ahh now you want me to find something outside of gc.com itself. It's not like you advertise there are discussions just as we as cachers don't always let on where our forums off site are. I can't take that as serious critism since its not something I could have known of. To second that I'm merely going from the messages in other forums outside gc.com where cache-tech has not indicated that he and gc.com are working on it, but he himself is working on it. I think if you ask a lot of cachers in the golden horseshoe, there was a recent post in the last few months on one of the boards we have chatted in where people seemed so surprised there was an issue and that cache-tech was on it already. So again I think its hard to say I should have researched, I had every reason to think Cache-Tech alone is on the problem based on his posts and lack of evidense to the contrary (lets say lack of obvious evidence...there may be an old post in the forums here but those get pushed down very quick) quote:Some of us have been working on this for over a year now and do a search on the Canada forum and you will find all the threads about this topic. I certainly will search the thread, but as I said if it isn't prominent on the first list of topics many people don't go reading or searching for something they don't know exists. I also checked out that group you mentioned where I could have researched. Theres appearently about a dozen people posting and maybe 75 to 100 messages over the last year? Its hard to say most would notice this exists...and a large number of the post belong to gm100guy Keith Bear & Ducky Quote Link to comment
Bear & Ducky Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 It seems that everyone assumes everything is working just fine and those of us that recognize issues are imagining it. It seems pointless to continue this thread as it is. I saw your post Keystone on the numbers, if thats the numbers then I guess the group watching from above that I'll have to switch this topic to in private and I will have to continue to wonder why things happen the way they do. Cache-tech I welcome you to make it to the pub night, I'm certainly not going to be physically hostile towards you but I will definately bring the issues that that community has shared to the table as then you'll get to hear from more voices expressing their concern. Beyond that I guess the best thing to do is let the rest rant on, I'll not close a thread simply because I think its become pointless but I certainly don't see what more there is to discuss. I'll happily wander off this thread and maybe the others to play where I see there are open minds and less fight to get some things disclosed. Keith Bear & Ducky Quote Link to comment
Max Cacher Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I basically review caches in three states Arkansas, Mississippi , and Tennessee and go into other states only when the approver for that area is on vacation or taking a break. Or just plain needs a little help. From Aug.22 to Oct 22 here are my stats: Arkansas 81 caches reviewed Mississippi 75 caches reviewed Tennessee 230 caches reviewed When cache placement picks up in any of these three states I will be asking for a new approver for that area. I work with about ten helpers in the three states from time to time and they are a tremendous help and receive no special favors at approval time on there caches, and are not allowed to be the first finder when checking one out for the site. This did not used to be the case when all cachers told us the truth about cache placement, but within the forums here, every now and then someone will say just “Lie” to them, we do. And yes I am still having fun as a cacher, benchmark hunter and a admin, lackey, reviewer, approver, archiver, moderator, and a lot of other names that we are called. By all means if you think for one second that I had slighted you in anyway please contact Groundspeak about me. It helps me be a better what ever you want to call me. Tennessee Geocacher I work for the chick that works for the frog, and you think Hydee is though on Ya’ll hahahahahaha Last I do not want anyone to know who I really am, for a whole lot of reasons Quote Link to comment
+Logscaler and Red Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 ?????? was this whole thing about anyway? If I have wrapped my head around this topic in the right direction, you want more layers of admin at geocaching.com? This is a simple game, not an onion. Who in their right mind would want to be listed as a "reporter" for any area? I have been asked by admin and cachers alike to help out in solving problems with caches. I have even went way out of my way and time to solve problems before they came to be. FTF at two caches that where 16 and 49 miles off. Repaired, Replaced, Rebuilt and Removed caches located with problems or in the wrong spots by "tourist". Upon their request of course for removal. Friday -10/24/03 - I hope to meet with the head park Ranger for all the State Parks and State Parks lands in Central Oregon. Again. For the third time in 2 years with this game. On my on time and of my on volition. So far, we in Central Oregon have lost 2 parks to geocaching and have to have the State Parks permission in one other park. But the reason's are very valid and straight forward as to why. But, we where also granted blanket permission to place as many caches in the rest of the parks and on State Park lands as we want. I try and check in with the lands manager every once and a while just to make sure things are still going smooth. He has my home phone number as well as my e-mail address. What more can I do for my local area? I am hoping to contact the County parks people as well. And then each nearby city park department. Now, what are you doing on your own? logscaler. "Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense." Mark Twain. Quote Link to comment
Bear & Ducky Posted October 23, 2003 Author Share Posted October 23, 2003 What am I doing? I'm working to build a souther ontario geocaching association, I've gotten involved with both people from the City of Brantford and City of Hamilton through business relationships to get them aware and interested in geocaching. (Both cities I cache in and have caches in.) They have helped spread the good pr throughout. I've done a spot on the radio with one of our popular stations morning show and newspaper interview with the local paper (servers 500,000 people or so) Hamilton Spectator. I am trying to get our local tv station (CH part of canwest global) to do a spot on geocaching...They are interested and its just a matter of setting it up. I'm continuously offering support to those interested in doing events, attending events and I always think about the other cachers before my self when going out to do events/caches. I think if you want to evaluate or equate these things its not practical. This is not a pissing contest. I'm not proud nor arrogant nor competitive about my involvment. I simply am involved in any way I can to be a part of a larger stronger community of cachers. I've been in on discussions with cachers where we would love to get involved in helping talk to our provincial parks people, but too many hands in the pot can meddle or cause problems so I've not got involved there. Even with my disagreement with Cache-Tech, I'd help him with this if he asked, my disagreement has nothing to do with my continued love of going caching, its just soured me on placing them. As for who would want to be a reporter...well hey its an idea, its an idea that others supported as well, obviously approvers are all jumping up and down saying they use local cachers already. GREAT! But these policies are not in the public eye, so when they are hidden they do not give cachers a sense of what is going on and if something is going on. Actually to be clearer I believe it was not ever stated as policy...only something like "Oh I already do that" Were just presenting ideas to make things better from a perceived lack of guidelines, I understand you don't like the suggestion of reporters...so noted. I like the idea of more localized personal connection to the approvers. Reporters was a suggestion that seemed like a good compromise from an earlier suggestion I made which was to set a max area that an approver can approve based on home coordinates. Its not going to kill gc.com to have a few more people working to better the sport. Keith Bear & Ducky Quote Link to comment
+woodsters Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 For one, I was able to see where B&D was coming from, after the other threads. If others have not read the other threads, then they probably would not know what was being discussed. As B&D just stated, there was a suggestion, by me about having "reporters". A couple expressed that they liked the idea and many others didn't. A couple approvers also stated that they do have people already that they call on for these similar duties, which is great. The idea was dual fold. One for helping the reviewers/approvers or whatever their technical name is, on those instances when a person submits a cache and it's kind of in a grey area. One particular incident that comes to mind. I believe it all worked out in the end, due to another cacher adjusting. But there may be some times when something like that, that comes into play. Sometimes you read about them here on the forums and since it's been recognized that many won't post on the forums, I imagine it goes on, off the forum as well. The other purpose that came to mind was on the removing of abandoned/archived caches. They would a designated person from geocaching to do so, rather than just say "someone" get it. I used the term "reporter". I know mtn-man said he didn't like the term. I simply used that in a sense that they would "report" to the approver. They would report their findings on the grey area type of caches and report to remove the cache. It was just a quick term used. Of course these people could be used for other reasons as well. But a couple of approvers said they do have some people they call on. That is fine. I guess I suggested something that some already do. I don't know if all do it. I was thinking of a more formalized type of way. I never heard of it being done and why I suggested it... It's no big deal. Since it's been stated that it sometimes happens and that some do it, then perhaps others that don't do it may want to follow the lead of their counterparts. Brian www.woodsters.com "TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.